Editor’s note: Welcome to the fifth episode of The Pain Beat, PRF’s new monthly podcast series! Supported by a generous grant from The MAYDAY Fund, The Pain Beat brings together the world’s leading pain investigators in order to spark dialogue and debate around important ideas in pain research. Guided by Rebecca Seal, scientific director of The Pain Beat, these podcasts feature open and spirited discussion about the hottest topics in pain and how the field moves forward from here.
For the fifth episode, The Pain Beat gathered together a group of pain researchers virtually to discuss how the mammalian nervous system encodes sensory modalities related to touch, pain, and temperature. Are there labeled lines? Or is there population coding? Do the mechanisms differ by location – the brain, spinal cord, or periphery?
Podcast participants include:
- Diana Bautista, PhD, UC Berkeley, US
- Nicholas Betley, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US
- Adam Hantman, PhD, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Janelia Research Campus, Ashburn, Virginia, US
- Mark Hoon, PhD, National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIDCR, Bethesda, US
- Taylor Sheahan, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, US (moderator)
Take a listen below and consider leaving a comment on the podcast at the bottom of this page. (All the Pain Beat podcasts are also available on Apple Podcasts here, and on Spotify here).
Podcast participants
PRF thanks Gary Hobish for providing the audio mastering for this podcast, and Kevin Seal for creating the music.
The Pain Beat is supported by a generous grant from The MAYDAY Fund.
Comments
Andrew Wright, self employed
Thank you. I very much
Thank you. I very much enjoyed the podcast; it was interesting and surprising. I expected a lively discussion between experts. I wasn't expecting the candour with which the contributors expressed their doubts about the topic. What is a labelled line? What is a noxious stimulus? Does the labelled line/population encoding debate matter? As a philosopher, I found this very refreshing.
What struck me most was that the contributors were questioning the adequacy of existing theoretical models. For example, one contributor said (to paraphrase) "Should we bin these theories and just listen to the data?" This brings me to my point. The contributors, and many other scientists I'm sure, are looking with hope toward the day when there are technological tools with the resolution and scope to unravel the details of neurological integration in the CNS. But conceptual models are required for the interpretation of data. And scientifically useful interpretation (i.e. interpretation that yields accurate predicitions) has a symbiotic relationship with conceptually consistent and robust theoretical models.
The conclusion I've drawn from this podcast is that the contributors believe that they don't have these models. What is a noxious stimulus? Is there a nociceptive system? What is pain processing'? Is it legitimate to refer to the currency of sub-personal systems as 'information'? What is meant by information in this context? If these concerns are firmly grounded, and I believe they are, existing pain data needs a new rigorously examined theoretical framework. It strikes me that the development of such a model is more important that the development of new technological tools because the considerable mass of existing data has been squeezed into an ill-fitting and poorly co-ordinated suit of clothes. Reinterpretation would be a considerable but rewarding task that should keep your contributors busy until the hoped-for technological tools arrive. Unfortunately, it's hard to see where this theoretical model is going to come from when the value of conceptual research is not widely recognised in the field of pain science.