From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Adjust lead to say 'conducts sensation to brain' and remove spinal cord? Spinal cord may be part of the CNS but it doesn't think, so how can it experience pain? It would only conduct. That's my thinking, agree/disagree? WLU (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. The word "sensation" here is being used in a technical/jargon way - it refers to non-conscious activity in nerves (that will/may later enter consciousness). (The spinal cord is involved in some processing of the data being carried.)
"Experience", in the field of pain, is subjective and takes place in consciousness. The brain, while being the physical location, is not refered to as the experiencer of subjective consciousness. "Sentient being" and mind are 2 other places where experience is said to occur.
A lot of nociception occurs without any conscious experience. As [Nociceptor] says "Nociception can also cause generalized autonomic responses before or without reaching consciousness to cause pallor, diaphoresis, bradycardia, hypotension, lightheadedness, nausea and fainting.
I would like to find a replacement word for "sensation" in the article/lead that allows a naive reader to appreciate the non-conscious nature of nociception. SmithBlue (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

History of terms[edit]

Anyone have info on the origins of "physiological pain"? SmithBlue (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm assessing this now, partly on the basis of what I expect it to be when we're done. If you disagree, then we can reassess it next month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpler Explanation?[edit]

Would someone who understands this subject add a layman's explanation?

  > I'd say "how the nerves process pain," 'noxious  stimuli' being pain.

Not to say I understand the subject. (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I was told by an oral surgeon that nociception is a "nerve ending encoding that tells the brain where the pain is (has) originated from". (Sort of like an internet IP address). The subject came up when discussing "referred pain" where another tooth seems to hurt, but instead the pain is from an adjacent (above, below, next to) tooth, disguising the actual tooth causing the pain. He went on to say that the teeth in the human (mouth) are lacking the nociception encoding and hence the brain has difficulty mapping the pain to the exact tooth actually causing the pain.

Furthermore, the "gating" talk about in the article is used by dentists when injecting anesthetic along side of the inside cheek. By tugging in a rapid and fluttering manner, the nerves are temporarily confused or shut off, and the needle puncture cannot be felt by the patient when done properly.Bcwilmot (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit] ˌnō-si-'sep-tiv\

Hopefully an editor can add this in the text. (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Male vs female pain[edit]

I heard that females are more tolerant to pain than men, because men have more pain receptors. It's linked to the Y chromosome. Is this true?Dbjorck (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I copied your question to the science reference desk because it's more likely to get noticed there, and article talk pages are only meant to be used for discussing proposed changes to the article, per our talk page guideline. I hope someone there can help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Chemical stimulation" seems incorrect[edit]

In section "Transmission through central nervous system", subsection "Paleospinothalamic tract", there's the sentence:

"Slow pain is stimulated by chemical stimulation, is poorly localized and is described as an aching, throbbing or burning pain."

Yet at "chemical stimulation" seems reserved for senses which detect chemicals, namely smell and taste. That doesn't seem to fit this page's usage.

Further, the reference given for this statement, "Pain Pathway" seems like someone's personal web page. Gwideman (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gwideman! I have now removed the sentence. Lova Falk talk 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

New section System overview[edit]

Have placed this at the end of the page before Clinical significance. This section was recently added by a new editor who clearly hadn't looked into the Wiki guidelines. The references provided are not entered up correctly and some may not even be suitable; there is a repetition of certain bits of information; there is a lot of content completely uncited; the diagram provided is by the editor and there are no refs given to back up the information. Have placed this section further down, still keeping the heading but treating it more as a summary. The section is in real need of attention. Hardly any links are provided and it is quite badly written up. But there may be useful content to retrieve. Let's see if it can be made good. Or it may be felt that it should be removed for improvement first as before the addition the page was B rated. --Iztwoz (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)