Editorial Topical Sections

Dopamine and serotonin in fear extinction: some key questions to be addressed

  • Received: 23 May 2020 Accepted: 15 July 2020 Published: 22 July 2020
  • Citation: Carmelo M Vicario, Gabriella Martino. Dopamine and serotonin in fear extinction: some key questions to be addressed[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(3): 271-274. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020014

    Related Papers:

    [1] Samuel Kwaku Agyei, Ahmed Bossman . Investor sentiment and the interdependence structure of GIIPS stock market returns: A multiscale approach. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(1): 87-116. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023005
    [2] Elvira Caloiero, Massimo Guidolin . Volatility as an Alternative Asset Class: Does It Improve Portfolio Performance?. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2017, 1(4): 334-362. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2017.4.334
    [3] Rubaiyat Ahsan Bhuiyan, Tanusree Chakravarty Mukherjee, Kazi Md Tarique, Changyong Zhang . Hedge asset for stock markets: Cryptocurrency, Cryptocurrency Volatility Index (CVI) or Commodity. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2025, 9(1): 131-166. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2025005
    [4] Mehmet F. Dicle, John D. Levendis . Hedging Market Volatility with Gold. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2017, 1(3): 253-271. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2017.3.253
    [5] Mehmet F. Dicle . US Implied Volatility as A predictor of International Returns. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2017, 1(4): 388-402. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2017.4.388
    [6] Wenhui Li, Normaziah Mohd Nor, Hisham M, Feng Min . Volatility conditions and the weekend effect of long-short anomalies: Evidence from the US stock market. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(2): 337-355. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023016
    [7] Hammad Siddiqi . Financial market disruption and investor awareness: the case of implied volatility skew. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(3): 505-517. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022021
    [8] Emmanuel Assifuah-Nunoo, Peterson Owusu Junior, Anokye Mohammed Adam, Ahmed Bossman . Assessing the safe haven properties of oil in African stock markets amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a quantile regression analysis. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(2): 244-269. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022011
    [9] Xiaohang Ren, Weixi Xu, Kun Duan . Fourier transform based LSTM stock prediction model under oil shocks. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(2): 342-358. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022015
    [10] Mustafa Tevfik Kartal . The behavior of Sovereign Credit Default Swaps (CDS) spread: evidence from Turkey with the effect of Covid-19 pandemic. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(3): 489-502. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020022


  • Traditionally, postural assessment follows a certain standardization, namely the observation of the body in a static position in the three planes of space [frontal (anterior/posterior), sagittal, and transverse] using the gravitational line as an imaginary axis of symmetry between body segments and the body in relation to space [1]. Connecting reference points on the body allows angular measurements to be taken, especially in relation to spinal curves in the sagittal plane and asymmetries in the frontal plane, allowing quantitative postural assessment [2]. Numerous variables obtained lead to the emergence of various management practices related to classifications of good posture. This management represents a gap in clinical practice, which has encouraged the development of technological resources and the use of instruments designed to measure, evaluate, and quantify postural alterations [3]. Postural assessment by digitizing the individual's image (digital photography) is an easy, low-cost, and non-invasive method. The concepts of photogrammetry have become fundamental premises in the development and validation of procedures for assessing postural deformities [4].

    In order to improve the quantification of data obtained from photogrammetry and carry out more accurate assessments, the baropodometer was developed, characterized by having numerous pressure sensors to assess the interaction of the foot with the support surface. [5] showed that there is a correlation between the distribution of forces in the plantar region and angles of postural deviations in the lumbosacral and cervo-thoracic regions. It is therefore possible to state that there is a correlation between plantar pressure distribution and a person's posture, considering not only the characteristics of the somatosensory system but also biometric data and body composition data. Upon that, body composition measures play an important role in postural profiling. Typically, body composition is easy to assess by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) due to its non-invasive assessment of body composition, including body water, muscular and fat mass, visceral fat, and metabolic rate [6]. BIA provides a comprehensive estimation of fat mass, fat-free mass, and body fluids, offering valuable insights into disease prognosis [6]. Moreover, BIA has been shown to yield comparable results to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, making it a reliable method for body composition assessment [6]. The evolution of BIA research has highlighted its diverse applications, ranging from the estimation of physiological function to the assessment of body composition, emphasizing its significance in clinical research [6].

    According to [7], the distribution of plantar pressure can reveal important information about the structures that make up the feet, as well as identify changes that may alter the performance of the feet in both healthy individuals and people with pathologies. Increased plantar pressure can be a predisposing factor to the appearance of various diseases or serious dysfunctions, increasing discomfort and bodily pain [8]. Abnormal postures may also have the opposite effect of causing pain and increasing the risk of sports injuries. For example, flat feet and high arches can alter the limb line and increase risks [9]. Baropodometry has been widely used in assessing treatment results, whether conservative or surgical, in various conditions [10] such as musculoskeletal pain, dyslexia, fibromyalgia, and multiple sclerosis, as well as in other clinical settings [11] and gait analysis [12]. However, caution is advised in interpreting baropodometry findings in clinical practice and scientific research [13]. The reliability of baropodometry in evaluating plantar load distribution has been demonstrated, making it a valuable instrument in determining plantar pressure, postural control, and plantar pressure distribution in various conditions [14].

    The most widely used method for studying postural problems is photogrammetry, which allows various data to be obtained from the photographs taken [15]. A detailed analysis of body posture makes it possible to obtain a vast number of variables such as assessing body alignment, head posture, orthostatic posture, and asymmetries [16],[17]. Most time, dealing with large amounts of data may be a challenge for researchers to summarize and create practical applications [18]. The complexity of the data obtained has contributed to the collaboration of artificial intelligence to verify significant variables, creating machine learning (ML) algorithms. According to [19], ML techniques have become powerful tools for finding patterns in the data obtained, reducing the volume of data.

    This paper will be organized into a literature review on body composition, plantar pressure distribution, center of mass, center of gravity, and the relationship with pain level, followed by methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

    BIA is based on the principle that body tissues have different resistances (impedances) to the passage of an electric current. By measuring the resistances that the body exerts on the current, BIA estimates the body composition of fat, lean tissue, and water components, thus providing a percentage of body fat [20]. High levels of fat are strongly related to metabolic disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and postural imbalances, further highlighting the importance of the role of body composition analysis (BIA) in postural and nutritional assessment [21].

    The baropodometry assessment involved the use of the Kinefis Podia baropodometer, equipped with four mats, an HD Logitech camera, and a Hama tripod, with technical specifications including a frequency of 800 Hz, maximum pressure of 1500 N/cm², 1600 sensor count, XY resolution of 2.5 dpi, Z resolution of 8 bits, and calibration validity [22]. The protocol included static and dynamic measurements, with the first stage capturing images in a static position [23]. This test makes it possible to quantitatively map the pressures on each segment of the plantar surface. For the static test, participants were asked to stand in the center of the platform for 5 s, with their arms on either side of their body in a natural position, looking straight ahead (Figure 1). For the dynamic test, participants were asked to walk barefoot on the platform at their normal pace, following the 3-step protocol, which requires landing on the platform on the third step of the gait. The duration of the assessment ranged from 8 to 15 min, and data were analyzed using Motux Studio software, version 1.9.69.0 [24].

    Figure 1.  Representative figure of static analysis.

    In mechanical terms, a human body is in equilibrium when the sum of internal and external forces and the moments of these forces acting on it result in zero [25]. Thus, the human body is never subject to the condition of perfect equilibrium, oscillating constantly even when in a static position. In order to accurately assess postural control, it is necessary to quantify this body oscillation using variables such as the center of pressure (COP) and the center of mass (COM) [26]. The assessment of static balance using COP data and related variables (I–C: distance between left foot COP and body COP; C–D: distance between right foot COP and body COP) has been carried out for various purposes, from checking the effect of training to injury prevention and recovery [27]. The COP position appears to be an interesting biomechanical quantity in the analysis of movement. This quantity can be directly used to evaluate balance or reactivity in sports performance [27].

    Participants were evaluated using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), which was presented orally and with a physical instrument. In a self-assessment action regarding pain, they reported the level of pain or discomfort experienced in their day-to-day activities.

    Figure 2.  Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).

    Preventing body pain is an efficient way to avoid expenses with medicine treatment, unload healthcare systems, and maintain quality of life via avoiding chronic pain installation [28]. In this context, machine learning (ML) algorithms can be useful for providing insights into diverse types of data, specifically in health sciences where accurate prediction can anticipate negative outcomes and thus address preventive interventions [29][32]. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) is a widely used tool for assessing pain intensity in various clinical settings [33][36] (Figure 2). The NPRS has been shown to have excellent psychometric properties, making it a reliable and valid measure of pain intensity [37]. It has also been found to be sensitive to changes in pain intensity over time, demonstrating its responsiveness in capturing fluctuations in pain levels [38]. Additionally, the NPRS is easy to administer and has high compliance rates, making it a practical choice for assessing pain in diverse patient populations [39]. The NPRS has been compared to other pain-rating scales, such as the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and has been found to perform favorably in scaling equivalence and administration [40]. This scale ranges from 0 to 10 and allows for a quick and straightforward interpretation of pain intensity, enabling efficient communication between patients and healthcare providers [41].

    The aim of this study was to identify significant variables contributing to the association between postural problems, plantar pressure distribution, and levels of bodily pain in middle-aged and elderly adults, utilizing an innovative ML approach. We hypothesize that plantar pressure characteristics and postural asymmetries differ by gender, are associated with body composition, and can predict pain levels. To our knowledge, this study is unique in incorporating variables that enable the identification of body asymmetries during postural analysis, based on plantar pressure distribution and body composition.

    The study employed an observational cross-sectional design. A convenience sample was recruited to analyze differences between men and women in anthropometrics, body composition, plantar pressure distribution, and pain levels. Without intervention, researchers observed and recorded data at a single time point, allowing comparisons between sexes and exploring correlations among the measured variables. This type of design allowed a snapshot view of the differences and associations present within the sample. The sampling method followed convenience sampling, and the research was conducted between April and October 2023.

    The population of the present study consisted of 52 (n = 52) participants of both sexes. The majority of study participants were female, comprising 67.3% (n = 35), while 32.7% of the sample were male (n = 17). The mean age of participants was 57.35 (male) and 64.69 years (female).

    Due to the complexity of the study, all participants underwent three assessment protocols: physical, postural, and baropodometric. The physical assessment protocol measured height, weight, amount of fat mass, amount of lean mass, amount of body water, basal metabolic rate, and shoe size. Data was collected using the LAICA PS5006 bioimpedance scale and height was measured using a portable stadiometer. To complete the postural assessment protocol, four images were taken of each participant (frontal plane, posterior plane, and two sagittal planes). All images were analyzed using the APECS Pro Plus platform (version 8.4.11). Only static images were analyzed in the baropodometry protocol. Shoe size was recorded as self-reported values.

    To participate in this study, the following criteria were defined: participants had to be at least eighteen years old and physically fit. Exclusion criteria included severe orthopedics problems (prosthesis placement, recent orthopedics surgeries), neurological issues (diseases requiring daily analgesic intake), cardiopulmonary diseases (pacemaker, use of oxygen cylinders), and pregnant women. All participants voluntarily took part, signing the informed consent form. The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki principles. The project was submitted to the Ethics Committee for Research with Human Subjects at the University of Beira Interior (Covilhã) and was approved under Opinion No. CE-UBI-Pj-2023-030; the study was retrospectively registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform under ID: NCT06647355 on October 15, 2024.

    Descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values. Exploratory analysis was conducted using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests to assess the normality and homogeneity of distributions, respectively. The statistical significance of the comparison between groups (sex) was assessed by a t-test. Effect sizes were interpreted as follows: Cohen's d < 0.2: small effect sizes; Cohen's d ≈ 0.2–0.5: moderate effect sizes; Cohen's d ≈ 0.5–0.8: medium effect sizes; and Cohen's d > 0.8: large effect sizes (Cohen, 2013). Pearson's correlation tests (rp) were used to check associations between variables (JASP, 2018). A representative correlation heatmap was created with software. All analyses were conducted using JASP v. 0.18.1 (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands) (JASP, 2018). The significance of the analysis was defined as 5% for every test [42].

    To find the adequate features to be inputted within the machine learning models, an exploratory analysis was performed through a correlation analysis due to prior knowledge within the literature about the linear correlation between body postures and pain rates [43]. Independent variables presenting correlations ≥ 0.30 (moderate size) with the patient's pain scores were selected, respecting Cohen's effect size cutoffs [42]. After this feature selection process, the dataset's dimensionality was reduced to prevent noise influence on ML algorithms' predictive performance [43].

    A machine learning approach was applied to predict the patient's body pain scores by using Python™, a computational programming language [44]. After exploratory analysis (displayed in Table 1), we identified the most correlated variables with the patient's pain scores. The featuring selection procedure selected the variables most relevant in predicting patients' pain levels, namely BMI (kg/m2), lean mass (%), right foot (RF), C–D [distance between right foot COP and body COP (mm)], A9 [angle of lateral deviation of the left knee (°)], neck deviation for the left side (°), and RPE (rate of perceived effort exertion in a single training session). Figure 3 shows the correlation matrix between all independent variables and target-dependent variables.

    Significant correlations were found (Table 1) between pain scores and various factors, such as BMI and RPE, highlighting the impact of body mass and perceived exertion on pain. Lean mass and RF_C–D distance were negatively correlated, reflecting their protective roles in reducing strain and improving alignment. A9 and neck deviation showed positive correlations, linking biomechanical misalignments to increased discomfort. These results emphasize the multifactorial nature of pain, influenced by both mechanical inefficiencies and subjective effort.

    Table 1.  Features most correlated with the participant's body pain levels.
    Variable Correlation with pain scores
    Height (cm) −0.20
    BMI (kg/m²) 0.30
    Fat mass (%) 0.23
    Lean mass (%) −0.30
    LF_Podal axis (°) 0.28
    LF_I–C (mm) −0.27
    RF_C-D (mm) −0.30
    A9 (°) 0.34
    Neck deviation left side (°) 0.41
    RPE 0.46

    A9: left knee angle; LF: left foot; RF: right foot; I–C: distance between left foot COP and body COP; C–D: Distance between right foot COP and body COP; RPE: rate of perceived effort exertion.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Figure 3 shows a correlation matrix that underscores the multifactorial nature of pain, influenced by biomechanical inefficiencies, postural deviations, and subjective exertion levels. Significant correlations were particularly noted with RPE, neck deviation, and A9 alignment. The analysis highlights key correlations with pain levels, with both positive and negative relationships. RPE showed a strong positive correlation, indicating that individuals experiencing higher exertion tend to report greater pain. Similarly, neck deviation (left side) and A9 (left knee lateral deviation angle) were positively correlated, linking postural imbalances and biomechanical misalignments to increased discomfort. On the other hand, lean mass and RF_C–D exhibited strong negative correlations, suggesting their protective roles in reducing strain and improving alignment. Moderate positive correlations were observed with BMI, indicating that higher body mass may increase mechanical stress and exacerbate pain, and LF_Podal Axis, pointing to the influence of foot alignment on discomfort levels.

    Figure 3.  Correlation matrix between the independent and the dependent target variable.

    In the next step, we tested two configurations for algorithm training, splitting 20% of the data for training and 80% for testing [32]. Since this research was multidimensional in nature, i.e. a lot of data was processed and analyzed, we came to the conclusion that the most correlated characteristics (these are: BMI, lean mass, distance between the COP of the right foot and the COP of the body, angle of lateral deviation of the left knee and deviation of the neck to the left side) were normalized within a range of −1 to 1 to avoid overfitting and possibly a regression calculation in a multidimensional characteristics space [45]. To evaluate model performance, the mean squared error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE), average, and standard deviation values of the predicted pain scores for each algorithm were also outputted considering the input features of X and Y arrays, thus making the estimation based on real and predicting features [46],[47]. This setup was applied to the seven following algorithms: extreme gradient boosting (EGB) [48], Bayesian regression [49], linear regression [50], ridge regression [51], decision tree regression [52], random forest regression [53], and support vector regression [53]. Performing different machine learning regressive models allows the comparison of their performance and the evaluation of dataset stability alongside different machine learning equations [54]. Finally, a K-fold cross-validation was applied to verify the stability of the prior ML algorithm. Cross-validation considered five folds and the same metrics of MSE and RMSE from the previous analysis [55].

    Table 2 presents the mean and standard deviation for anthropometrics, body composition, pain level, baropodometric, and postural asymmetries for the total sample, male, and female participants.

    Table 2.  Mean and standard deviation for anthropometrics, body composition, pain level, baropodometric, and postural asymmetry variables.

    Variables Total (N = 52)
    Mean (± Sd)
    Females (N = 35)
    Mean (± Sd)
    Males (N = 17)
    Mean (± Sd)

    Anthropometrics and body composition Age (years) 62.29 ± 18.093 64.69 ± 18.706 57.35 ± 16.167
    Height (cm) 165.31 ± 10.151 160.46 ±7.294 175.29 ± 7.614
    Weight (kg) 70.46 ± 13.222 65.64 ± 10.213 80.40 ± 13.406
    BMI (kg/m²) 25.6483 ± 3.69897 25.4620 ± 3.87153 26.0318 ± 3.39550
    Fat mass (%) 28.248 ± 6.7271 28.546 ± 6.3491 27.635 ± 7.6154
    H2O (%) 50.88 ± 4.649 50.20 ± 4.526 52.28 ± 4.718
    Lean mass (%) 29.298 ± 4.1095 28.289 ± 3.8629 31.376 ± 3.9116
    Basal metabolism (kcal) 1341.21 ± 227.902 1235.89 ± 126.222 1558.06 ± 239.735
    Shoe number 39.02 ± 2.834 37.44 ± 1.523 42.26 ± 2.009

    Pain level Pain level 6.50 ± 2.356 6.66 ± 2.086 6.18 ± 2.877

    Baropodometry LF_Lateral load (%) 47.502 ± 5.2400 48.243 ± 5.9058 45.976 ± 3.1192
    LF_Maximal pressure (kPa) 234.500 ± 20.1625 232.243 ± 22.5655 239.147 ± 13.4036
    LF_Area (cm²) 124.15 ± 24.902 114.89 ± 18.130 143.24 ± 26.520
    LF_Podal axis (°) 8.692 ± 9.2125 6.669 ± 5.7419 12.859 ± 13.1551
    LF_I-C (mm) 105.64 ± 23.604 97.68 ± 21.360 122.04 ± 19.547
    RF_lateral lead (%) 52.498 ± 5.2400 51.757 ± 5.9058 54.024 ± 3.1192
    RF_Maximal pressure (kPa) 238.465 ± 11.2321 237.397 ± 12.3577 240.665 ± 8.3658
    RF_Area (cm²) 130.92 ± 28.776 119.77 ± 21.855 153.88 ± 28.149
    RF_Podal axis (°) 10.442 ± 4.7455 9.800 ± 4.5166 11.765 ± 5.0665
    RF_C-D (mm) 94.473 ± 16.5183 90.189 ± 16.3103 103.294 ± 13.4757

    Postural asymmetries in the anterior view of the frontal plane A1 (°) 0.62 ± .796 0.57 ± .850 0.71 ± .686
    A2 (°) 1.90 ± 2.452 2.26 ± 2.737 1.18 ± 1.551
    A3 (°) 1.54 ± 1.686 1.60 ± 1.818 1.41 ± 1.417
    A4 (°) 1.42 ± 1.944 1.54 ± 2.241 1.18 ± 1.131
    A5 (°) 0.81 ± 1.344 0.91 ± 1.541 0.59 ± .795
    A6 (°) 0.79 ± 1.273 0.94 ± 1.474 0.47 ± .624
    A7 (°) 0.81 ± 1.155 0.91 ± 1.245 0.59 ± .939
    A8 (°) 2.88 ± 2.691 2.43 ± 2.404 3.82 ± 3.067
    A9 (°) 3.58 ± 3.102 3.31 ± 3.085 4.12 ± 3.160
    A10 (°) 13.94 ± 7.770 12.89 ± 7.673 16.12 ± 7.737
    A11 (°) 9.60 ± 7.807 9.03 ± 8.234 10.76 ± 6.933

    Postural asymmetries in the anterior view of the frontal plane P1 (°) 0.40 ± .569 0.46 ± .611 0.29 ± .470
    P2 (°) 1.50 ± 1.732 1.57 ± 1.945 1.35 ± 1.222
    P3 (°) 1.77 ± 1.676 1.91 ± 1.805 1.47 ± 1.375
    P4 (°) 1.04 ± 1.298 1.17 ± 1.317 0.76 ± 1.251
    P5 (°) 0.96 ± 1.414 1.11 ± 1.623 0.65 ± .786
    P6 (°) 0.98 ± 1.196 0.83 ± 1.150 1.29 ± 1.263
    P7 (°) 1.17 ± 1.354 1.14 ± 1.004 1.24 ± 1.921
    P8 (°) 4.17 ± 5.346 4.43 ± 5.853 3.65 ± 4.227

    Postural asymmetries in the right lateral of the sagittal plane R1 (°) 1.92 ± 1.426 1.89 ± 1.430 2.00 ± 1.458
    R2 (°) 33.83 ± 7.641 34.03 ± 8.414 33.41 ± 5.948
    R3 (°) 14.94 ± 13.557 11.09 ± 7.789 22.88 ± 18.904
    R4 (°) 8.42 ± 8.252 9.03 ± 8.719 7.18 ± 7.282
    R5 (°) 4.73 ± 2.650 5.09 ± 3.033 4.00 ± 1.414
    R6 (°) 4.42 ± 3.133 4.03 ± 2.995 5.24 ± 3.345
    R7 (°) 32.85 ± 7.734 32.40 ± 7.624 33.76 ± 8.113

    Postural asymmetries in the left lateral of the sagittal plane L1 (°) 2.40 ± 1.636 2.11 ± 1.530 3.00 ± 1.732
    L2 (°) 35.96 ± 7.554 35.69 ± 7.892 36.53 ± 7.001
    L3 (°) 8.04 ± 6.750 6.71 ± 6.926 10.76 ± 5.618
    L4 (°) 10.40 ± 6.832 11.29 ± 7.303 8.59 ± 5.501
    L5 (°) 4.71 ± 2.913 4.29 ± 3.073 5.59 ± 2.399
    L6 (°) 3.73 ± 3.182 3.14 ± 2.724 4.94 ± 3.766
    L7 (°) 29.50 ± 7.964 28.37 ± 8.229 31.82 ± 7.055

    A1: body alignment; A2: head tilt; A3: shoulder alignment; A4: armpit alignment; A5: rib cage tilt; A6: deepest point on trunk; A7: pelvic tilt; A8: right knee angle; A9: left knee angle; A10: right foot rotation; A11: left foot rotation; P1: body alignment; P2: head tilt; P3: shoulder alignment; P4: armpit alignment; P5: deepest point on trunk; P6: pelvic tilt; P7: knees; P8: feet; R1: body alignment; R2: head displacement; R3: shoulder angle; R4: pelvic tilt; R5: knee; R6: tibia; R7: foot angle; L1: body alignment; L2: head displacement; L3: shoulder angle; L4: pelvic tilt; L5: knee; L6: tibia; D7: foot angle; LF: left foot; RF: right foot; I–C: distance between left foot COP and body COP; C–D: distance between right foot COP and body COP.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Comparisons between both sexes for anthropometrics, body composition, pain level, and baropodometric variables revealed significant differences, with males presenting higher scores for height, weight, lean mass percentage, basal metabolism, shoe number, left foot area, podal axis, distance between left foot COP and body COP, right foot area, and distance between right foot COP and body COP (Table 3).

    Table 3.  Test value (F) and significance (p) for comparisons between sexes regarding anthropometrics, body composition, pain level, and baropodometric variables.
    Variables F p Variables F P
    Age (years) 1.913 0.173 LF_Lateral load (%) 2.190 0.145
    Height (cm) 46.028 < 0.001 LF_Maximal pressure (kPa) 1.351 0.251
    Weight (kg) 19.416 < 0.001 LF_Area (cm²) 20.501 < 0.001
    BMI (kg/m²) 0.268 0.607 LF_Podal axis (°) 5.636 0.021
    Fat mass (%) 0.206 0.652 LF_I–C (mm) 15.701 < 0.001
    H2O (%) 2.356 0.131 RF_lateral lead (%) 2.190 0.145
    Lean mass (%) 7.253 0.010 RF_Maximal pressure (kPa) 0.968 0.330
    Basal metabolism (kcal) 40.638 < 0.001 RF_Area (cm²) 23.020 < 0.001
    Shoe number 92.731 < 0.001 RF_Podal axis (°) 2.000 0.164
    Pain level 0.471 0.495 RF_C–D (mm) 8.223 0.006

    LF: left foot; RF: right foot; I–C: distance between left foot COP and body COP; C–D: distance between right foot COP and body COP.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The comparisons between sexes regarding postural asymmetries revealed no significant differences. Table 4 shows group comparisons.

    Table 4.  Comparison between sexes for postural asymmetries.
    Variable F p Variable F p Variable F P
    A1 (°) 0.322 0.573 P1 (°) 0.938 0.338 R4 (°) 0.572 0.453
    A2 (°) 2.279 0.137 P2 (°) 0.179 0.674 R5 (°) 1.956 0.168
    A3 (°) 0.140 0.710 P3 (°) 0.799 0.376 R6 (°) 1.721 0.196
    A4 (°) 0.402 0.529 P4 (°) 1.126 0.294 R7 (°) 0.352 0.556
    A5 (°) 0.669 0.417 P5 (°) 1.256 0.268 L1 (°) 3.519 0.067
    A6 (°) 1.593 0.213 P6 (°) 1.759 0.191 L2 (°) 0.140 0.710
    A7 (°) 0.910 0.345 P7 (°) 0.052 0.820 L3 (°) 4.394 0.041
    A8 (°) 3.208 0.079 P8 (°) 0.241 0.626 L4 (°) 1.812 0.184
    A9 (°) 0.764 0.386 R1 (°) 0.072 0.789 L5 (°) 2.349 0.132
    A10 (°) 2.019 0.162 R2 (°) 0.073 0.788 L6 (°) 3.861 0.055
    A11 (°) 0.561 0.457 R3 (°) 10.233 0.002 L7 (°) 2.200 0.144

    A1: body alignment; A2: head tilt; A3: shoulder alignment; A4: armpit alignment; A5: rib cage tilt; A6: deepest point on trunk; A7: pelvic tilt; A8: right knee angle; A9: left knee angle; A10: right foot rotation; A11: left foot rotation; P1: body alignment; P2: head tilt; P3: shoulder alignment; P4: armpit alignment; P5: deepest point on trunk; P6: pelvic tilt; P7: knees; P8: feet; R1: body alignment; R2: head displacement; R3: shoulder angle; R4: pelvic tilt; R5: knee; R6: tibia; R7: foot angle; L1: body alignment; L2: head displacement; L3: shoulder angle; L4: pelvic tilt; L5: knee; L6: tibia; D7: foot angle.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    After applying all algorithms, we found the leading models for each predictive variable. The support vector machine was the better algorithm in predicting a score of 7 points in the NPRS scale pain perception (MSE = 4.0.9, RMSE = 2.02, predicted value = 7 points in NPRS) based on the best features retrieved. Therefore, the best model presented good metrics after passing the 5-fold cross-validation method (MSE = 3–7, RMSE = 2–3, predictions = 5–7 points in NPRS) (displayed in Table 5).

    Table 5.  Summary of the machine learning algorithm's performance in predicting body pain scores based on neck left deviation, body mass index, and body lean mass.
    ML model MSE RMSE Pred. (x. ± sd)
    GXBoost 11.16 3.34 5 ± 2.43
    Bayesian regression 5.09 2.25 6 ± 1.28
    Linear regression 6.22 2.49 6 ± 1.79
    Ridge regression 6.09 2.46 6 ± 1.75
    Decision tree regression 5.45 2.34 6 ± 1.86
    Support vector regression 4.09 2.02 7 ± 0.98
    Random forest regression 7.25 2.69 6 ± 1.49

    MSE: mean square error; RMSE: root mean square error; x: average; sd: standard deviation. The best algorithm (support vector regression) is in bold.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This work aimed to identify significant variables that contribute to the association between postural problems, plantar pressure distribution, and levels of bodily pain in middle-aged and older adults. It was hypothesized that plantar pressure characteristics differ by sex, related to body composition and pain level. The results discussed next confirmed this hypothesis.

    The present study revealed significant differences between males and females in foot-related and body composition variables. The variables that confirmed this were height, weight, left foot area, podal axis, left foot I–C, lean mass percentage, basal metabolism, shoe number, right foot area, and C–D; males presented higher values in all these variables. These results emphasize the unique physiological and biomechanical profiles of each sex [56]. These differences also applied to water percentage, foot dimensions, BMI, lean mass, and basal metabolism. The literature reports that these variables may influence plantar pressure distribution and foot function [57],[58]. Findings also highlighted moderate disparities in water content and foot dimensions between sexes, potentially contributing to variations in foot biomechanics and plantar pressure distribution [59]. Understanding these differences may be a starting point for developing tailored interventions that account for the unique physiological and biomechanical profiles of males and females [56],[57]. Further research is warranted to comprehensively understand the implications of these differences on foot biomechanics and plantar pressure distribution [28],[59].

    Despite ongoing research and the development of new interventions, musculoskeletal pain in the spine remains a clinical challenge due to its multifactorial condition and high incidence [60]. Given the biomechanical complexity involved in maintaining body balance and postural alignment, it should be noted that various factors can intervene negatively, requiring compensatory body and motor adjustments. Alterations in the conduction, integration, or processing of sensory information caused by postural changes can lead to less efficient body balance [61].

    In the present study, pain level scores were obtained by self-reports as a perceptive variable. It is possible to measure pain by objective measures without relying on perception through behavioral observation scales, such as the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), which assess pain via observable behaviors like facial expressions and body movements [62]. Physiological markers, including heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels, provide indirect indicators of pain [63],[64]. Advanced technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) quantify neural activity associated with pain [65],[66]. These methods are especially useful for non-verbal patients or those unable to self-report, as they allow for the assessment of pain through objective measures that do not rely on subjective reporting [67][69]. However, for the present study, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) was a reliable and valid measure instrument with psychometric properties [37],[64][70].

    Sex differences were noted across various variables; anthropometrics, body composition, pain levels, and baropodometric variables were examined, revealing significant distinctions. Notably, disparities were observed in anthropometrics such as height, weight, lean mass percentage, basal metabolism, and shoe size [71]. In the present study, the left foot area, pedal axis, and distances between foot and body centers of pressure (COPs) revealed significant differences between sexes. These differences have also been noted and explained by the literature [72].

    The machine learning prediction revealed predictive capability in the combination of BMI with postural features, explaining that subjects' pain levels were positively correlated with BMI, left knee angle related to the valgus knee, neck deviation degree, and RPE, and inversely correlated with lean mass and distance of the right foot COP in relation to body COP in a single training session. The same methodology has been used in previous studies. One study described running injury and pain prediction using machine learning [73]; another study revealed that women typically experience more pain due to biological markers [74]. No study was found employing machine learning techniques to explain the associations between postural asymmetries and pain levels. However, it is possible to find several studies reporting the relationships between pain levels and postural asymmetries. One study reported that the higher the level of postural imbalance, the higher the pain levels [70]. [75] revealed that postural correction therapeutics may help to reduce pain levels. Finally, and in agreement with the results of the present study, neck asymmetries are also related to increased pain levels [76]. Bodily pain can increase the relative effort required to train because it directly interferes with the perception of effort, physical performance, and motivation. This relationship is influenced by various factors: physiological, psychological, and neurological. Chronic pain is often associated with a chronic inflammatory state, which can affect muscle performance, reduced range of motion, and increased fatigue. Pain can alter posture and movement patterns, which can lead to less efficient muscle recruitment and a greater risk of injury [61].

    Although the results found have scientific value, it is necessary to consider some limitations. This study was carried out with a convenience sample; also, it is an observational study, and there is a need for caution when interpreting the results. Additionally, the sample does not represent a specific population while being mostly made up of the female, which may have influenced the results, given that there are anthropometric differences between the genders. Finally, the sample size and characteristics do not allow more precise techniques such as deep learning. Based on the results of this study, we identify the need for future studies to develop and implement training programs to improve physical fitness and body composition. It is hoped that such training programs can influence the distribution of plantar pressure and postural asymmetries, improving body composition in the long term (increasing muscle mass and strength and reducing body fat mass). The integration of baropodometry with body posture asymmetries, RPE in exercise training sessions, and pain levels has practical implications for the quality of life, making it possible to identify more key variables in explaining the causes of pain. Finally, having a higher number of participants will allow running more advanced statistical procedures (i.e., deep learning).

    This study allowed us to conclude that baropodometric variables differ between sexes; also, pain level is explained by body composition and posture. Males presented higher values of left foot area and podal axis, left foot I–C, lean mass percentage, basal metabolism, shoe number, right foot area, right foot C–D, and shoulder angle. Additionally, we found that higher BMI correlates with pain level, reduced lean mass, distanced right foot COP in relation to body COP, left knee angle exposing a valgus knee, neck deviation degree, and higher RPE.

    This innovative study could play a crucial role in improving people's quality of life, as it makes it possible to identify significant variables in a postural analysis. Baropodometry can be integrated with other technologies, such as 3D motion analysis and imaging tests, offering a comprehensive view of the body's biomechanics. This multidisciplinary approach allows for more effective treatments and a more accurate understanding of patients' needs. Moreover, the application of models like convolutional neural networks can retrieve rich information about pain-related features in different populations.

    The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.



    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Vicario CM, Salehinejad MA, Felmingham K, et al. (2019) A systematic review on the therapeutic effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 96: 219-231. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.012
    [2] Martino G, Langher V, Cazzato V, et al. (2019) Editorial: Psychological factors as determinants of medical conditions. Front Psychol 10: 2502. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02502
    [3] Martino G, Catalano A, Bellone F, et al. (2019) As time goes by: Anxiety negatively affects the perceived quality of life in patients with Type 2 diabetes of long duration. Front Psychol 10: 1779. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01779
    [4] Martino G, Caputo A, Bellone F, et al. (2020) Going beyond the visible in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Defense mechanisms and their associations with depression and health-related quality of life. Front Psychol 11: 267. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00267
    [5] Martino G, Bellone F, Langher V, et al. (2019) Alexithymia and psychological distress affect perceived quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mediterr J Clin Psychol 7: 1-15.
    [6] Rosa V, Tomai M, Lauriola M, et al. (2019) Body mass index, personality traits, and body image in Italian pre-adolescents: An opportunity for overweight prevention. Psihologija 52: 379-393. doi: 10.2298/PSI181121009R
    [7] Kalisch R, Gerlicher AMV, Duvarci S (2019) A dopaminergic basis for fear extinction. Trends Cogn Sci 23: 274-277. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.013
    [8] Schultz W (2015) Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiol Rev 95: 853-951. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00023.2014
    [9] Vicario CM, Gulisano M, Martino D, et al. (2016) Timing recalibration in childhood Tourette syndrome associated with persistent pimozide treatment. Neuropsychol 10: 211-222. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12064
    [10] Vicario CM, Gulisano M, Maugeri N, et al. (2020) Delay reward discounting in adolescents with Tourette's syndrome. Mov Disord (Online ahead of print).
    [11] Salinas-Hernández XI, Vogel P, Betz S, et al. (2018) Dopamine neurons drive fear extinction learning by signaling the omission of expected aversive outcomes. Elife 7: e38818. doi: 10.7554/eLife.38818
    [12] Luo R, Uematsu A, Weitemier A, et al. (2018) A dopaminergic switch for fear to safety transitions. Nat Commun 9: 2483. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04784-7
    [13] Porreca F, Navratilova E (2017) Reward, motivation, and emotion of pain and its relief. Pain 158: S43-S49. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000798
    [14] Schultz W (2016) Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response. Nat Rev Neurosci 17: 183-195. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2015.26
    [15] Daw ND, Kakade S, Dayan P (2002) Opponent interactions between serotonin and dopamine. Neural Netw 15: 603-616. doi: 10.1016/S0893-6080(02)00052-7
    [16] Singewald N, Schmuckermair C, Whittle N, et al. (2015) Pharmacology of cognitive enhancers for exposure-based therapy of fear, anxiety and trauma-related disorders. Pharmacol Ther 149: 150-190. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.12.004
    [17] Vicario CM (2013) Uncovering the neurochemistry of reward and aversiveness. Front Mol Neurosci 19: 41.
    [18] Vicario CM, Nitsche MA, Felmingham K (2017) Forgetting fear associations through tES: Which memory process might be critical? Transl Psychiatry 7: e1046. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.26
    [19] Wellman CL, Izquierdo A, Garrett JE, et al. (2007) Impaired stress-coping and fear extinction and abnormal corticolimbic morphology in serotonin transporter knock-out mice. J Neurosci 27: 684-691. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4595-06.2007
    [20] Zhang G, Ásgeirsdóttir HN, Cohen SJ, et al. (2013) Stimulation of serotonin 2A receptors facilitates consolidation and extinction of fear memory in C57BL/6J mice. Neuropharmacology 64: 403-413. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.007
    [21] Baratta MV, Kodandaramaiah SB, Monahan PE, et al. (2016) Stress enables reinforcement-elicited serotonergic consolidation of fear memory. Biol Psychiatry 79: 814-822. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.025
    [22] Burghardt NS, Sigurdsson T, Gorman JM, et al. (2013) Chronic antidepressant treatment impairs the acquisition of fear extinction. Biol Psychiatry 73: 1078-1086. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.10.012
    [23] Whittle N, Maurer V, Murphy C, et al. (2016) Enhancing dopaminergic signaling and histone acetylation promotes long-term rescue of deficient fear extinction. Transl Psychiatry 6: e974. doi: 10.1038/tp.2016.231
    [24] Maier SF, Seligman ME (2016) Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. Psychol Rev 123: 349-367. doi: 10.1037/rev0000033
    [25] Deakin JFW (1983) Roles of brain serotonergic neurons in escape, avoidance and other behaviors. J Psychopharmacol 43: 563-577.
    [26] Ishiwata T, Hasegawa H, Greenwood BN (2017) Involvement of serotonin in the ventral tegmental area in thermoregulation of freely moving rats. Neurosci Lett 653: 71-77. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.05.030
    [27] Vicario CM, Nitsche MA, Hoysted I, et al. (2020) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the ventromedial prefrontal cortex enhances fear extinction in healthy humans: A single blind sham-controlled study. Brain Stimul 13: 489-491. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.12.022
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Amine Kechid, Habiba Drias, 2019, Chapter 41, 978-3-030-22998-6, 470, 10.1007/978-3-030-22999-3_41
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3989) PDF downloads(215) Cited by(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog