The Bingel Laboratory
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Bingel and her research group focuses on the interaction between pain and cognitive processes. We have a longstanding expertise in investigating the CNS mechanisms underlying nociception, pain, and pain modulation in health and disease. In our research, we use behavioural paradigms, pharmacological modulations, as well as functional and structural brain imaging. Being particularly intrigued by the reciprocal effects of pain and cognition, we have a strong focus on translational questions such as the role of expectations and prior experiences on analgesic treatment outcomes. Our interdisciplinary research group comprises neurologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, biologists, and computer scientists and is based at the Department of Neurology at the University Medicine Essen. We are affiliated with the Erwin-L-Hahn institute for magnetic resonance imaging and the Translational Pain Research Department of the University Pain Center. Our research is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Recent News
The Bingellab was selected by the Junge Akademie as one of 24 best research environments in Germany in 2024 (out of over 270 applications)! Thanks to our postdocs Livia and Ezgi for representing us in Berlin at the prize ceremony. Read the full shortlist here.
We aimed to identify shared and distinct mechanisms of placebo analgesia induced by suggestions alone versus suggestions combined with conditioning. We conducted a systematic meta-analysis of individual participant data from 16 within-participant placebo neuroimaging studies (n = 409).
Both techniques increased activity during pain in the dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior parietal cortices and decreased activation in the insula, putamen, and primary sensory areas. Adding conditioning enhanced engagement of regions associated with context representation and pain modulation (e.g., dorsolateral/dorsomedial prefrontal cortices) and decreases in nociceptive regions (e.g., primary sensory and insular areas). Conditioning also strengthened the association between analgesia and nociceptive activity, as reflected in the Neurologic Pain Signature. Combining conditioning with instructions yielded greater analgesia, mediated by increased ventromedial prefrontal and dorsal caudate activity, alongside decreased sensory-nociceptive and cerebellar activity.
These findings suggest the two strategies rely on partially distinct mechanisms, which could be combined to optimize placebo analgesia’s clinical application. Read the full preprint on bioRxiv here.
Lab members surrounding Jialin Li published a new preprint on BioRxiv as part of the SFB 1280. Appetitive and aversive conditioning are both fundamental to adaptive behaviour, yet there remains limited understanding of how they differ on the behavioural and neural level. We investigated the two processes during acquisition and extinction using functional magnetic resonance imaging and behavioural measures. The results suggest that while appetitive and aversive learning share activation in regions involved in sensory processing (occipital lobe) and learning (vmPFC), aversive learning uniquely engages areas promoting rapid acquisition (mediodorsal thalamus and locus coeruleus) and cautious unlearning, in line with the notion of a ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ strategy. Read more about the work here.
In a new preregistered study, we set out to compare the magnitude and duration of placebo versus nocebo effects in healthy volunteers, and also to examine the different factors contributing to these effects. Despite the clinical relevance of these effects, the question of how placebo and nocebo effects differ in strength and duration remains largely unexplored.
In this preregistered study, we used a within-subject design in 104 healthy to investigate and directly compare the magnitude and persistence of placebo and nocebo effects on experimental pain. Effects were assessed immediately after their induction through verbal instructions and conditioning and at a one-week follow-up.
Significant placebo and nocebo effects were detected on day 1 and day 8, but nocebo effects were stronger on both test days. Sustained effects after one week were primarily predicted by individuals’ experienced effects on day 1. Our findings underscore the enduring nature of placebo and nocebo effects in pain, with nocebo responses demonstrating consistently greater strength, which is consistent with an evolutionarily advantageous ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ strategy. These insights emphasise the significant impact of nocebo effects and stress the need to prioritise efforts to mitigate them in clinical practice.
