We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

Comparing Painful Stimulation vs Rest in Studies of Pain—Reply ONLINE FIRST

Tim V. Salomons, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Centre for Integrative Neuroscience & Neurodynamics, University of Reading, Reading, England
JAMA Neurol. Published online August 29, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.2992
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In Reply We thank Büchel and colleagues for their letter, and we are pleased to see that their considerations are based on a viewpoint almost entirely in agreement with our own. Their statement that pain matrix responses generated using traditional analysis methods and experimental designs are “confounded by unspecific effects” is a concise summary of our letter1 and a theme of much of our previous work.2

Figures in this Article


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Pain Matrix Responses in a Reverse Inference Mask of Pain

A, Red indicates Neurosynth-based pain matrix (reverse inference, feature set pain; N = 420 studies). Blue indicates conjunction of control individuals’ responses to noxious stimulation. B, Activation levels (z scores) of single participants within the pain matrix. C, Neurosynth-based pain matrix (red) and conjunction of patients’ responses to noxious stimulation (yellow). ACC indicates anterior cingulate cortex.

Graphic Jump Location




August 29, 2016
Christian Büchel, MD; Stephan Geuter, PhD; Christian Sprenger, MD
1Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
2Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder
JAMA Neurol. Published online August 29, 2016.;():. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.2989.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...