{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3471","dataset_id":"ds006902","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Maria Geisler, Marco Herbsleb, Feliberto de la Cruz, Sabrina von Au, Andy Schumann, Ilona Croy, Karl-Jürgen Bär"],"bids_version":"1.7.0","contact_info":["Maria Geisler","Feliberto de la Cruz"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006902.v1.1.1","datatypes":["fnirs"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":42,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds006902","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"225b98609234a95a84f2a8a3d149d63663cc17ea33e437b34d8de7e2347cd2b0","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Profound neuronal differences during Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia between athletes and non-athletes revealed by functional near-infrared spectroscopy","readme":"Regular physical activity is an important treatment constituent for chronic pain. To unravel the neuronal influence of exercise on pain, we investigated the neuronal changes during exercise-induced hypoalgesia in endurance athletes and controls.\nTwenty-two athletes (mean age: 33.3 ± 10.8 years) and twenty non-athletes (mean age: 28.9 ± 9.0 years) underwent High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and pressure pain tests, while brain oxygenation was monitored using functional near-infrared spectroscopy to cover key regions of pain processing: the prefrontal cortex (PFC), sensory motor cortices, and posterior parietal cortex (PPC).\nDuring HIIT, both groups exhibited a steady increase in PFC oxyhemoglobin, with athletes showing a greater increase in the PPC area than non-athletes. As expected, athletes showed a significant reduction in pain perception after HIIT, whereas non-athletes did not. In line, athletes showed a significant decrease in oxyhemoglobin levels in all brain areas post-HIIT, while non-athletes only showed a decrease in sensory motor areas. Interestingly, in athletes, pain reduction correlated with the decrease in PFC oxyhemoglobin during painful stimulation, whereas no significant correlation was observed in non-athletes.\nThe pronounced HIIT-induced increase in oxyhemoglobin in athletes may elevate baseline neural activity to a level where additional activation is limited, potentially reducing the salience of pain-related signals. This athlete-specific response may result from endurance training adaptations, such as enhanced microvascularization and oxygen delivery, promoting greater neural efficiency during high-intensity exercise. These findings highlight HIIT's potential as a targeted pain management strategy for athletes and the need for tailored approaches in non-athletes.\ndataset: sub01-sub27 are athletes; sub29-sub53 are non-athletes","recording_modality":["fnirs"],"senior_author":"Maria Geisler, Marco Herbsleb, Feliberto de la Cruz, Sabrina von Au, Andy Schumann, Ilona Croy, Karl-Jürgen Bär","sessions":[],"size_bytes":5914166447,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["pain"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:29:45.775498+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-11-05T14:27:43.212Z","dataset_modified_at":"2025-11-06T08:17:37.000Z"},"total_files":42,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006902","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README.md","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"eed14334c5da0887","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T19:12:55.083465+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Motor"],"type":["Perception"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.75,"modality":0.7,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Few-shot conventions relevant here: (1) The Motor Movement/Imagery dataset shows that when the core experimental manipulation is movement/action, Modality can be labeled \"Motor\" even if the stimulus is presented visually (the key is dominant input/manipulation). (2) The Braille letters dataset demonstrates that when the primary external stimulation is somatosensory/tactile, Modality is labeled \"Tactile\". This dataset combines exercise (movement) with pressure pain stimulation, so the same conventions suggest Motor vs Tactile as the main competing modality labels, with Motor likely winning if HIIT is the primary experimental condition.","metadata_analysis":"Key facts from the provided README: (1) Population grouping is athletic status, not a named disease: \"Twenty-two athletes ... and twenty non-athletes\" and \"dataset: sub01-sub27 are athletes; sub29-sub53 are non-athletes\". (2) Task/stimulation includes exercise plus pain stimulation: \"underwent High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and pressure pain tests\" and the study focuses on \"neuronal changes during exercise-induced hypoalgesia\". (3) Clinical terms appear contextually but not as recruitment criteria: \"Regular physical activity is an important treatment constituent for chronic pain\" (framing), while participants are described as athletes/controls rather than chronic pain patients.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says participants are \"athletes\" and \"non-athletes\" (no explicit diagnosis), suggesting a non-clinical cohort; few-shot patterns treat such non-diagnosis cohorts as \"Healthy\". ALIGN.\nModality: Metadata says both \"High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)\" (motor/exercise) and \"pressure pain tests\" (somatosensory/tactile nociceptive stimulation). Few-shot conventions indicate choosing the dominant experimental input/manipulation (e.g., Motor when movement is central; Tactile when tactile stimulation is central). PARTIAL ALIGN but ambiguous dominance.\nType: Metadata emphasizes pain perception modulation from exercise: \"exercise-induced hypoalgesia\" and \"pain perception after HIIT\"; few-shot conventions map sensory detection/discrimination to \"Perception\" and clinical cohort/intervention-heavy studies to \"Clinical/Intervention\". Here, intervention exists (HIIT) but not a recruited clinical population. Mostly ALIGN with \"Perception\" as the construct focus, with some pull toward \"Clinical/Intervention\" due to treatment framing.","decision_summary":"Pathology top-2: (A) Healthy — supported by \"Twenty-two athletes ... and twenty non-athletes\" and lack of any diagnosed patient recruitment; (B) Other — possible because chronic pain is discussed (\"treatment constituent for chronic pain\") but not stated as participant diagnosis. Winner: Healthy. Confidence rationale: 2 clear quotes about non-clinical grouping and no explicit diagnosis.\nModality top-2: (A) Motor — HIIT is a major experimental condition (\"underwent High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)\"); (B) Tactile — pressure pain stimulation is an explicit stimulus (\"pressure pain tests\" / \"painful stimulation\"). Winner: Motor because the study’s main manipulation is exercise-induced hypoalgesia centered on HIIT, with pain tests used to probe effects. Confidence rationale: explicit evidence for both candidates makes dominance somewhat uncertain.\nType top-2: (A) Perception — primary outcomes are \"pain perception\" and responses to \"painful stimulation\" (sensory/pain processing); (B) Clinical/Intervention — exercise is framed as a \"treatment\" and HIIT is an intervention-like manipulation. Winner: Perception because the dataset is not recruited around a clinical disorder and focuses on pain processing modulation rather than clinical treatment evaluation. Confidence rationale: multiple pain-perception quotes support Perception, but intervention framing keeps runner-up plausible."}},"computed_title":"Profound neuronal differences during Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia between athletes and non-athletes revealed by functional near-infrared spectroscopy","nchans_counts":[{"val":112,"count":42}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":7.627765064836003,"count":42}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.312113+00:00","total_duration_s":99640.4574,"author_year":"Geisler2025","canonical_name":null}}