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.

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!

We warmly invite you to this great online patient forum (in German) on 29.9.2024 from 17:30 – 19:15 where Ulrike Bingel, Helena Hartmann, and Sven Benson will talk about the power of expectations. Click here to download the flyer and here to register for the Zoom webinar.

A CRC/TRR 289 research team from the Universities of Marburg, Giessen and Essen (including the Bingellab) investigated how treatment expectations influence treatment success and how homeopathy uses these effects. Homeopathy is often presented as having no effect at all because no effect beyond the placebo effect has been proven. Globules do not contain any pharmacologically active ingredients that could rationally explain an effect, yet both patients and homeopaths report positive effects for various disorders. How can this be explained? Read the original publication here.