After many rehearsals, yesterday some of our lab members participated in the on-site review for the third funding period of the Collaborative Research Center 1280. We represented project A11 which investigates the neural and behavioral mechanisms underlying the acquisition, extinction and reinstatement of pain-related fear in the context of somatic pain. The newly planned project for the third funding period will tackle learning and extinction in dynamic environments in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients. Now we have our fingers crossed until the DFG makes their final decision!

In the picture from left to right: Katja Wiech, Katarina Forkmann, Jialin Li, Lea Busch, Ulrike Bingel, & Katharina Schmidt

This online study (n = 532) led by Diana Müssgens assessed preferences and expectations concerning open-label placebo (OLP) dosage form, intake frequency, and pricing. Round white pills were rated as most appealing, convincing, and effective. OLP pills were expected to be most effective for improving mood and sleep. Finally, people would pay most for OLPs intended to treat chronic pain, mood, and sleep. Want to know more? Read the full article here.

Helena won one of the ten Top Young Science Best Paper Awards from the medical faculty! Read the prize-winning paper “A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions” published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour with shared first author Julian Packheiser here.

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.

Last week, we invited six kids and adolescents to the Bingellab for a day of research and pain experiments! First, PhD and medical doctoral students presented what they are working on as researchers and what a typical day in their life looks like. Then, some activities followed, for example, “Guess which fruit was measured in the MRI scanner?” They could also try out different types of pain induction like electrical, heat or cold water pain, and got some information what transcranial magnetic stimulation is for. Lastly, the rubberhand illusion and making brain helmets is always fun! We definitely enjoyed the day and hope the girls and boys did too!

Performing high-quality research can be challenging, especially for early career researchers! Helena Hartmann and her colleagues created a solution: ARIADNE – a living and interactive resource navigator that helps to use and search a dynamically updated database of resources. In the corresponding published tutorial in the journal Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, they guide researchers through a standard research project using ARIADNE along the way. Read the paper here and try out the tool here!