Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 27, 2025
Author Spotlight: Quantifying Pain Experience – An Illustrative Approach Using the Pain Body Diagram
Published on: July 7, 2023
Sensory-Discriminative Three-Dimensional Body Pain Mobile App Measures Versus Traditional Pain Measurement With a
Niko Kaciroti1,2,3, Marcos Fabio DosSantos4,5, Brenda Moura2,5
1Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Background:
To quantify pain severity in patients and the efficacy treatments, researchers and clinicians apply tools such as the traditional visual analog scale (VAS) that leads to inaccurate interpretation of the main sensory pain.
Objective:
This study aimed to validate the pain measurements of a neuroscience-based 3D body pain mobile app called GeoPain.
Methods:
Patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were assessed using GeoPain measures in comparison to VAS and positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), pain and mood scales, respectively. Principal component analysis (PCA), scatter score analysis, Pearson methods, and effect size were used to determine the correlation between GeoPain and VAS measures.
Results:
The PCA resulted in two main orthogonal components: first principal component (PC1) and second principal component (PC2). PC1 comprises a combination score of all GeoPain measures, which had a high internal consistency and clustered together in TMD pain. PC2 included VAS and PANAS. All loading coefficients for GeoPain measures in PC1 were above 0.70, with low loadings for VAS and PANAS. Meanwhile, PC2 was dominated by a VAS and PANAS coefficient >0.4. Repeated measure analysis revealed a strong correlation between the VAS and mood scores from PANAS over time, which might be related to the subjectivity of the VAS measure, whereas sensory-discriminative GeoPain measures, not VAS, demonstrated an association between chronicity and TMD pain in locations spread away from the most commonly reported area or pain epicenter (P=.01). Analysis using VAS did not detect an association at baseline between TMD and chronic pain. The long-term reliability (lag >1 day) was consistently high for the pain area and intensity number summation (PAINS) with lag autocorrelations averaging between 0.7 and 0.8, and greater than the autocorrelations for VAS averaging between 0.3 and 0.6. The combination of higher reliability for PAINS and its objectivity, displayed by the lack of association with PANAS as compared with VAS, indicated that PAINS has better sensitivity and reliability for measuring treatment effect over time for sensory-discriminative pain. The effect sizes for PAINS were larger than those for VAS, consequently requiring smaller sample sizes to assess the analgesic efficacy of treatment if PAINS was used versus VAS. The PAINS effect size was 0.51 SD for both facial sides and 0.60 SD for the right side versus 0.35 SD for VAS. Therefore, the sample size required to detect such effect sizes with 80% power would be n=125 per group for VAS, but as low as n=44 per group for PAINS, which is almost a third of the sample size needed by VAS.
Conclusions:
GeoPain demonstrates precision and reliability as a 3D mobile interface for measuring and analyzing sensory-discriminative aspects of subregional pain in terms of its severity and response to treatment, without being influenced by mood variations from patients.
