Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:04:56.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Assessment of Pain Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Phyllis G. Croft
Phyllis G. Croft*
Affiliation:
Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare. From Neuropsychiatric Research Centre, Whitchurch Hospital, Cardiff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assessment of pain perception is a subject of great importance from both the practical and the theoretical aspect. The increasing use of curare-like drugs as muscular relaxants and basal anaesthetics (Mushin, 1951), and in conjunction with electro-convulsant therapy (E.C.T.), has made the orthodox tests for depth of anaesthesia unreliable because they depend on the activity of voluntary muscle. E.C.T. itself (Morgan, 1950) and industrial electrical accidents (Hume, 1935) have given rise to unusual states of consciousness which cannot be fully understood until more is known about the way in which electric shock affects the central nervous system. On the theoretical side many explanations of the essential features of a state of consciousness have been given, but none of them accounts completely for all the observed phenomena; investigations designed to improve methods of assessment should provide useful information which, when correlated with that from other fields, may ultimately lead to a better understanding of the conscious state. The object of the experiments described in this paper has been the development of tests which will indicate the level of consciousness, and in particular the appreciation of pain, when the voluntary muscles are paralysed.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 98 , Issue 412 , July 1952 , pp. 427 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1952 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adrian, E. D., Physical Background of Perception, 1947. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bernstein, L., J. Physiol., 1950, 111, 33.Google Scholar
Bickford, R. G., E.E.G. Clin. Nextrophysiol. 1950, 2, 93.Google Scholar
Idem, Fed. Proc., 1951, 10, 14.Google Scholar
Brazier, M. A. B., J. Neurol. Neurosurg. and Psychiat., 1948, 11, 113.Google Scholar
Faulconer, A., Pender, J. W., and Bickford, R. G., Anaesthesiology, 1949, 10, 601.Google Scholar
Gibbs, F. A., Davies, H., and Lennox, W. G., Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 1935, 34, 1133.Google Scholar
Hume, C. W., Nature, Lond., 1935, 135, 105.Google Scholar
Jewsbury, E. C. O., Brain, 1951, 74, 336.Google Scholar
Lennox, M. A., et al., E.E.G. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1951, 3, 63.Google Scholar
Lewy, F. H., and Gammon, G. D., J. Neurophysiol., 1940, 3, 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longley, E. O., private communication.Google Scholar
Lowenbach, H., and Lyman, R. S., J. Neurol Psychiat., 1940, 3, 336.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. H., Stain Tech., 1940, 15, 133.Google Scholar
Martin, J. P., Lancet, 1949, i, 1 and 48.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. J., J. Physiol., 1950, 112, 48.Google Scholar
Mushin, W. W., Proc. R. Soc. Med., 1951, 44, 840.Google Scholar
Swank, R. L., and Foley, J. M., J. Pharmacol., 1948, 92, 381.Google Scholar
Wall, P. D., and Davies, G. D., J. Neurophysiol., 1951, 14, 507.Google Scholar
Walter, W. G., Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., 1936, 30, 579.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.