@article {841,
	title = {Dissociable influences of opiates and expectations on pain.},
	journal = {J Neurosci},
	volume = {32},
	year = {2012},
	month = {2012 Jun 6},
	pages = {8053-64},
	abstract = {<p>Placebo treatments and opiate drugs are thought to have common effects on the opioid system and pain-related brain processes. This has created excitement about the potential for expectations to modulate drug effects themselves. If drug effects differ as a function of belief, this would challenge the assumptions underlying the standard clinical trial. We conducted two studies to directly examine the relationship between expectations and opioid analgesia. We administered the opioid agonist remifentanil to human subjects during experimental thermal pain and manipulated participants{\textquoteright} knowledge of drug delivery using an open-hidden design. This allowed us to test drug effects, expectancy (knowledge) effects, and their interactions on pain reports and pain-related responses in the brain. Remifentanil and expectancy both reduced pain, but drug effects on pain reports and fMRI activity did not interact with expectancy. Regions associated with pain processing showed drug-induced modulation during both Open and Hidden conditions, with no differences in drug effects as a function of expectation. Instead, expectancy modulated activity in frontal cortex, with a separable time course from drug effects. These findings reveal that opiates and placebo treatments both influence clinically relevant outcomes and operate without mutual interference.</p>},
	keywords = {Analgesics, Opioid, Anticipation, Psychological, Behavior, brain mapping, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Hemodynamics, Hot Temperature, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Injections, Intravenous, Linear Models, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Piperidines, Young Adult},
	issn = {1529-2401},
	doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0383-12.2012},
	author = {Atlas, Lauren Y and Whittington, Robert A and Lindquist, Martin A and Wielgosz, Joe and Sonty, Nomita and Wager, Tor D}
}
@article {847,
	title = {Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask.},
	journal = {J Cereb Blood Flow Metab},
	volume = {30},
	year = {2010},
	month = {2010 Sep},
	pages = {1551-7},
	abstract = {<p>Over the past year, a heated discussion about {\textquoteright}circular{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteright}nonindependent{\textquoteright} analysis in brain imaging has emerged in the literature. An analysis is circular (or nonindependent) if it is based on data that were selected for showing the effect of interest or a related effect. The authors of this paper are researchers who have contributed to the discussion and span a range of viewpoints. To clarify points of agreement and disagreement in the community, we collaboratively assembled a series of questions on circularity herein, to which we provide our individual current answers in <or=100 words per question. Although divergent views remain on some of the questions, there is also a substantial convergence of opinion, which we have summarized in a consensus box. The box provides the best current answers that the five authors could agree upon.</p>},
	keywords = {Brain, brain mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Guidelines as Topic, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neurosciences, Publications, Research Design, Selection Bias},
	issn = {1559-7016},
	doi = {10.1038/jcbfm.2010.86},
	author = {Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus and Lindquist, Martin A and Nichols, Thomas E and Poldrack, Russell A and Vul, Edward}
}
