A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A18 A19 A21 F01 F02 INF Ö

A11 – Mechanismen des appetitiven und aversiven schmerzbezogenen Lernens in Gesunden und chronischen Rückenschmerzpatienten

Ulrike Bingel, Katharina Schmidt

Projekt A11 untersucht die Akquisition, das Extinktionslernen und das Reinstatement von schmerzbezogener Angst sowie deren zugrundliegende neuronale Mechanismen in Patienten mit chronischen unteren Rückenschmerzen und gesunden Kontrollpersonen. Wir nutzen ein differentielles Angstkonditionierungsparadigma, in dem schmerzhafte Hitzereize als unkonditionierte Stimuli (US) dienen und erheben neben Verhaltensdaten auch physiologische und neuronale (MRT) Daten, um folgende Fragestellungen zu untersuchen: (1) schmerz-spezifische Mechanismen der Angstkonditionierung, (2) der Effekt von pharmakologisch induziertem Stress auf das Extinktionsgedächtnis und das Reinstatement und (3) Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der aversiven und appetitiven Konditionierung im Kontext Schmerz.

Leitfragen des Projekts A11:

  • Unterscheiden behaviorale und neurale Mechanismen des Erwerbs, der Extinktion und des reinstatement von CS-US-Assoziationen zwischen somatischen Schmerzreizen und gleichstark aversiven auditiven Reizen? Sind diese schmerzspezifischen Effekte bei Patienten mit chronischen unteren Rückenschmerzen verstärkt?
  • Beeinträchtigt die systemische Gabe des Glukokortikoids Hydrocortison die Erinnerung an extingierte Angst vor Schmerz? Ist dieser Effekt bei Patienten mit chronischen unteren Rückenschmerzen verstärkt?
  • Unterscheiden Lern- und Extinktionsmechanismen zwischen Hinweisen auf eine Schmerzlinderung und eine Schmerzverschlechterung? Was sind die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen aversivem und appetitivem Lernen im Kontext von Schmerz?
Zurück zur Projektübersicht

Ulrike Bingel

Projektleiterin A11

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Katharina Schmidt

Projektleiterin A11

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Katja Wiech

Beraterin A11

University of Oxford

Bálint Kincses

Postdoc A11

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Lea Busch

Doktorandin A11

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Jialin Li

Doktorandin A11

Universität Duisburg-Essen

10 projektrelevante Publikationen

Busch L, Wiech K, Gamer M, Kincses B, Spisák T, Schmidt K*, Bingel U* (2023) Modulatory effects of instructions on extinction efficacy in appetitive and aversive learning: A registered report.https://osf.io/cj75p

Forkmann K, Wiech K, Schmidt K, Schmid-Köhler J, Bingel U (2023) Neural underpinnings of preferential pain learning and the modulatory role of fear. Cerebral Cortex 33:9664–9676. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhad236 

Kincses B, Forkmann K, Schlitt F, Jan Pawlik R, Schmidt K, Timmann D, Elsenbruch S, Wiech K, Bingel U, Spisák T (2024) An externally validated resting-state brain connectivity signature of pain-related learning. Commun Biol 7:875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06574-y 

Koenen LR, Icenhour A, Forkmann K, Theysohn N, Forsting M, Bingel U, Elsenbruch S (2018) From Anticipation to the Experience of Pain: The Importance of Visceral Versus Somatic Pain Modality in Neural and Behavioral Responses to Pain-Predictive Cues. Psychosomatic Medicine 80:826–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000612

Koenen LR, Pawlik RJ, Icenhour A, Petrakova L, Forkmann K, Theysohn N, Engler H, Elsenbruch S (2021) Associative learning and extinction of conditioned threat predictors across sensory modalities. Commun Biol 4:553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02008-1 

Li J*, Schmidt K*, Busch L, Forkmann K, Spisák T, Kaur J, Schlitt-Nguyen F, Wiech K, Bingel U (2025) Common and distinct neural mechanisms of aversive and appetitive pain-related learning. bioRxiv:2025.04.02.646781. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.02.646781 #OA

Schlitt F, Schmidt K, Merz CJ, Wolf OT, Kleine-Borgmann J, Elsenbruch S, Wiech K, Forkmann K, Bingel U (2022) Impaired pain-related threat and safety learning in patients with chronic back pain. Pain 163:1560–1570. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002544 

Schmidt K, Forkmann K, Elsenbruch S, Bingel U (2020) Enhanced pain-related conditioning for face compared to hand pain. PLoS ONE 15:e0234160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234160 

Schmidt K*, Schlitt F*, Wiech K, Merz CJ, Kleine-Borgmann J, Wolf OT, Engler H, Forkmann K, Elsenbruch S*, Bingel U* (2024) Hydrocortisone Differentially Affects Reinstatement of Pain-related Responses in Patients With Chronic Back Pain and Healthy Volunteers. The Journal of Pain 25:1082–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.10.028 

van der Schaaf ME*, Schmidt K*, Kaur J, Gamer M, Wiech K, Forkmann K, Bingel U (2022) Acquisition learning is stronger for aversive than appetitive events. Commun Biol 5:302. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03234-x

New Year, New Me: The Facts

As the calendar turns to a new year, millions of people around the world commit to New Year’s resolutions, making promises to use the new year as a fresh beginning and an opportunity for transformation. In 2024, almost three-quarters of the British population set themselves New Year’s resolutions — that’s around 40 million people (or the entire population of Canada). This tradition was particularly strong among younger generations, with 96% of Generation Z (aged 18-27) planning resolutions, compared to just 35% of the Silent Generation (aged 79+).

Most common new years resolutions:

  1. Saving more money (52%)
  2. Eat healthier (50%)
  3. Exercise more (48%)
  4. Lose weight (37%)
  5. Spend more time with family/friends (35%)

How long do most resolutions normally last before being broken?

  • Data from America (2016) shows that 75% of individuals maintain their resolutions through the first week. 
  • 64% of individuals maintain their resolutions through the first month. 
  • 46% of individuals in America keep their resolutions past the 6-month mark.

What makes resolutions stick?

Oscarsson et al. (2020) conducted research into what makes New Year’s resolutions stick. Biggest success rates depended on how people phrased their goals. Participants who set approach-oriented goals (trying to move toward or maintain a desirable outcome or state) than those with avoidance-oriented goals (trying to move toward or maintain a desirable outcome or state) were significantly more successful (58.9% vs. 47.1%) at sticking to their goals.

The study also investigates the effects of outside support. These participants received monthly follow-ups and emails with information and exercises for coping with hurdles when striving toward personal goals, and were also encouraged to set goals using the SMART technique and to set interim goals. The group that received some support was exclusively and significantly more successful compared to the groups who received a lot of support or no support at all. 

Additionally, you might feel more successful if you set goals that are measurable in numbers. While success for a person striving to quit smoking or lose weight could easily be measured in the number of cigarettes smoked or body mass index, the success for a person striving to „take better care of themselves“ could be highly subjective and possibly impossible to measure.

So as we enter 2026, let’s remember to work with our brain’s natural learning system: Frame your goals positively, break them into manageable steps, and celebrate small wins along the way.