Blackwell Science, LtdOxford,

UKCHACephalalgia0333-1024Blackwell Science, 20052616473Original ArticleStress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTHRB Leistad et al.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2005.00997.x

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and tension-type headache
RB Leistad1, T Sand1, RH Westgaard2, KB Nilsen1 & LJ Stovner1
Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Technology and Science and Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, St Olavs Hospital, and 2Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
1

Leistad RB, Sand T, Westgaard RH, Nilsen KB & Stovner LJ. Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and tension-type headache. Cephalalgia 2006; 26:6473. London. ISSN 0333-1024 We recorded deep pain and surface electromyographic (EMG) responses to stress in 22 migraineurs during headache-free periods, 18 patients with tension-type headache (TTH), and 44 healthy controls. Sixty minutes of cognitive stress was followed by 30 min relaxation. EMG and pain (visual analogue scale) in the trapezius, neck (splenius), temporalis and frontalis areas were recorded. TTH patients had higher pain responses in temporalis and frontalis (with similar trends for trapezius and splenius) and more potentiation of pain during the test than controls. Migraine patients developed more pain in the splenius and temporalis than controls. Muscle pain responses were more regional (more pain in the neck and trapezius compared with the temporalis and frontalis) in migraine than in TTH patients. TTH patients had delayed pain recovery in all muscle regions compared with controls, while migraine patients had delayed pain recovery in a more restricted area (trapezius and temporalis). EMG responses were not different from controls in headache patients, and EMG responses did not correlate with pain responses. TTH patients had delayed EMG recovery in the trapezius compared with controls and migraine patients. These results support the concept that (probably central) sensitization of pain pathways and the motor system is important in TTH. Less pronounced and more regional (either peripheral or central) trigeminocervical sensitization seems to be important in migraine. Surface-detectable muscular activation does not seem to be causal for pain during cognitive stress either in migraine or in TTH. EMG, migraine, pain, stress, tension-type headache Rune Bang Leistad, Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, St Olavs Hospital, N-7006 Trondheim, Norway. Tel. + 47 7355 1528, fax + 47 7386 7581, e-mail rune.leistad@ntnu.no Received 24 November 2004, accepted 16 March 2005

Introduction
Perceived stress is a triggering factor for headache in both migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) (1 4). It has been hypothesized that repeated stress, lack of habituation (or sensitization) to repeated stress, or a prolonged physiological response to the stressor (or insufcient recovery) may cause disease, chronic pain or other subjective health complaints (5, 6). One of the physiological responses to cognitive stress is
64

increased muscle activation (7), but the pathophysiological role of muscle activity in headache has not been fully established. In patients with TTH, some studies have reported a higher electromyographic (EMG) activity compared with healthy controls (8, 9), while others have found normal EMG activity in such patients (10). Muscular activation can occur as a direct consequence of stress, or it may be linked to a change in pain modulation such as central sensitization (11). Central sensitization of pain pathways
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTH has previously been suggested as an important mechanism in both TTH (12) and migraine (13). The aim of this study was to investigate pain and muscle activation during and after stress in migraine and TTH patients. We measured surface EMG and perceived pain during controlled low-grade cognitive stress for 1 h followed by 30 min relaxation. This procedure can induce EMG activation and pain in the shoulders, neck and head of patients with TTH (14), cervicogenic headache (15), bromyalgia (16) and in healthy controls (17). A similar experiment has to our knowledge not been performed on International Headache Society (IHS)-classied migraineurs. By comparing the effects of stress in migraine, TTH and healthy subjects, we aim to contribute useful information about the mechanisms of pain development and pain modulation in these disorders.

65

Materials and methods Subjects

Forty-four healthy control subjects, 35 women [mean age 39.7 (SD 12.3) years] and nine men [36.6 (12.4) years], and 40 patients with headache participated in this study. Twenty-two patients were diagnosed with migraine, 20 women [39.8 (14.4) years] and two men [45.0 (7.1) years], and 13 of these patients had aura. Eighteen patients were diagnosed with TTH, nine women [33.8 (11.4) years] and nine men [35.7 (12.3) years]. Twelve of the TTH patients had chronic TTH. All headache patients were recruited from the Department of Neurology, St Olavs University Hospital, and diagnosed according to the IHS classication of headache from 1988 (18)

(Table 1). Among the control subjects no one had headache or musculoskeletal pain for more than 1 day per month. Exclusion criteria were: neoplastic disease, hypertension, infectious disease, metabolic, endocrine or neuromuscular diseases, connective tissue disorder, tendinitis, recent signicant accident or injury, pregnancy, daily medication (e.g. neuroleptics, antiepileptics, Ca2+-blockers, b-blockers, antidepressants) and signicant associated diseases affecting either the heart, lungs, cerebrovascular system, central or peripheral nervous system. Migraineurs with TTH more than 7 days per month were also excluded. Controls were recruited from workplaces in Trondheim. The project was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee. All participants gave written informed consent and received NOK 500 (42) for transport expenses and inconvenience. The participants were provided with written information concerning the aim of the study prior to the day of the stress test. The aim of studying pain and headache was mentioned, but the information focused on the practical details of the procedure. Pain expectancy (19) therefore probably did not contribute much to pain and, if present, would be similar in patients and controls, since the laboratory personnel were blinded as to the diagnostic status.

Questionnaire and interview

A structured interview concerning headaches and musculoskeletal complaints (distribution, severity and duration) was performed. One of these questions was: Please state the level of general tension you have felt during the last 23 months. The response was scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS) with endpoints: not tense to very tense.

Table 1 Demographic and headache data on subjects included in the study Controls (n = 44) 35 : 9 39.0 (1961) 25.8 (084) 0.0 (031) 0.0 (030) Migraine (n = 22) 20 : 2 40.2 (2060) 19.9 (737) 51.9 (9120) 4 (18.2) 29 (172) 13 (59.1) 35.1 (187) 0.0 (035) 2.0 (027) Tension-type headache (n = 18) 9:9 34.7 (1952) 8.1 (032) 87.0 (24150) 12 (66.7) 34 (860) 25.1 (065) 34.5 (066) 45.0 (084)

Subject group Gender ratio (F/M) Mean age (range) Mean number of years with headache (range) Mean number of headache attacks per year (range) Number of subjects with chronic headache (%) Mean duration (h) of headache attacks (range)* Number of subjects with aura (%) Mean general tension (VAS) (range) Median headache intensity (VAS) before test (range) Median headache intensity (VAS) after test (range) *One migraine patient had some attacks of short duration. VAS, Visual analogue scale.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

66

RB Leistad et al. a new suggestion was displayed. The subjects were instructed to carry out the assignment as fast and correctly as possible, and the computer provided feedback on performance by informing whether the answer was correct or not, and how fast the trial was performed (very slow, slow, normal, fast or very fast) (21). The normal response for each subject was determined as the mean response time during a 5min trial period. Before the stress test was started, the procedure was explained and electrodes were xed in a relaxed atmosphere for about 30 min. A mini trial was also performed to familiarize the subjects with the procedure. The laboratory temperature was kept at 24.5 1 C. Short maximal voluntary contractions were performed on each pair of muscles twice (frontalis muscle raising eyebrows, temporalis clenching teeth, neck pushing head back against resistance, trapezius pushing extended arms upwards against resistance at a 45 angle out from the body). The recording proceeded with 5 min uninstructed rest (UIR) followed by 5 min active, instructed rest with visual EMG feedback (FB). The cognitive task was then performed for 1 h (8001500 trials), followed by 30 min recording during rest. The patients were asked to relax while seated and to move as little as possible during the recovery period. After the UIR and FB periods, at 10-min intervals during the cognitive task and at 10-min intervals during the recovery period, the subjects were asked to mark on a VAS scale their level of pain (no pain to worst bearable pain). The different locations of pain corresponded to the positions of the EMG electrodes (17). No patient had to be excluded because of headache attacks during the test. Levels of tension, fatigue, and sleepiness were also scored (VAS) by the patient during the test. Venous blood was sampled before the test and immediately after the stress period (after 60 min). These data as well as cardiovascular stress responses will be reported in a separate paper.

Thirteen of the 22 migraineurs reported a migraine attack within 2 days before the stress test, while 11 patients reported an attack within a day after the stress test. Demographic data are given in Table 1. All subjects answered a questionnaire on marital status, weight, medication, stimulant use, exercise habits and sleep problems (data not shown). Subjects also reported headache intensity before and after the test was nished.

Electromyographic recordings
Muscle activity was measured by bilateral recorded surface EMG (electrode diameter 6 mm, xed distance between the two poles 20 mm) (17). The system noise was 1.5 mV (root mean square, RMS). EMG was ltered (101250 Hz), stored on a digitizing tape recorder (Earth Data 128), and A/D converted (Powerlab 16S, sampling rate 2 kHz; ADInstruments Ltd, Chalgrove, UK) for calculation of RMS values (100 ms running time window). Sharp transients and ECG artefacts were eliminated with a median lter. Bilateral recordings were performed over the frontalis, temporalis, neck (splenius captis), and trapezius muscles. Frontalis electrodes were placed on a vertical line, crossing the pupil with the inferior electrode 10 mm above the upper border of the eyebrow. The inferior temporalis electrode was placed 10 mm lateral to the external angle of the orbit, while the second electrode was placed vertically above the rst. The neck electrode was placed at the C2 level just at the edge of the trapezius muscle about 3540 mm laterally, while the second electrode was placed directly below. The medial trapezius electrode was placed 10 mm lateral to the midpoint of a line connecting the acromion and the spinous process of C7, while the lateral electrode was placed on the same line. The ground electrode was placed on the C7 spinous process (17).

Procedure
The subjects were seated in an ordinary ofce chair without armrests and performed a two-choice reaction-time test presented on a PC monitor for 60 min (17). The test involved a grid (7 columns by 5 rows) in which a large and a small square were placed randomly (20). The subject was then presented with a suggestion on how to move the small square to superimpose it on the large square (for instance, two up, four left), and the subjects responded by pressing either right or wrong on a panel before them with their right index or ring ngers, respectively. Then the positions of the squares were changed, and

Data analysis
Mean EMG RMS values in mV were calculated for UIR, FB and each 10-min interval during the cognitive test and during recovery. From these values, four main variables were produced: mean EMG before test (UIR period), mean EMG response during the test (average of 60 min during stressUIR), early and late EMG recovery responses after the test. Early recovery response was dened as the difference between the mean value during the 6575-period and the UIR baseline value, late recovery response
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTH was dened as the difference between the mean during the 8595-period and UIR baseline. Pain responses were calculated for each location as the difference between maximal reported pain during the test (irrespective of right or left side) and baseline pain. To evaluate the patients recovery from pain, the number of subjects who did not return to their starting pain were counted for each location at 75 and 95 min (early and late recovery, respectively).

67

Results Pain responses to cognitive stress compared with baseline pain

Pain increased signicantly compared with baseline during the test for all three groups (Fig. 1). TTH patients reported the highest pain scores in general. Pain responses did not differ signicantly between migraine and TTH patients (Table 2). Compared with controls, migraine patients reported a signicantly higher pain response in the splenius and temporalis muscles. TTH patients had signicantly higher responses in the temporalis and frontalis, and they showed a trend towards more pain in the trapezius (P = 0.06) and splenius (P = 0.06). Both controls and migraineurs reported signicantly lower responses in the frontalis compared with the trapezius and splenius. Controls also experienced less pain in the temporalis compared with the trapezius and splenius (Table 2). Both migraineurs and TTH patients had generally higher baseline pain in the head compared with controls (Fig. 1). TTH patients also had higher baseline pain in the neck compared with controls, and higher baseline pain than migraineurs in the head.

Statistical analysis
The MannWhitney U-test was used for intergroup comparisons. Wilcoxons signed-rank test was used for intragroup comparisons of responses at different times or locations. Differences in pain recovery rates were analysed with Pearsons c2 test. In order to test if pain or EMG increased or decreased within the test (i.e. from 10 to 60 min), repeated measures ANOVAs were used. Change with time was analysed for each muscle with separate tests for each group, while group differences were evaluated by time group interactions in three different ANOVA tests for each muscle (controls vs. migraine, controls vs. TTH, and migraine vs. TTH). Spearmans rank order r was used for correlation analysis. To test the hypothesis that either baseline EMG or the EMG response can predict the pain response the correlation coefcients for each of the four regions for each group were calculated. We also tested the hypothesis that baseline pain might inuence EMG responses in the same way, and we explored if background variables such as general tension and headache history duration were able to predict pain and EMG responses. A two-tailed signicance level of < 0.05 was considered signicant. P-values within a range of 0.050.10 were dened as trends.

Pain recovery after cognitive stress

TTH patients needed more time than controls to recover from the pain (Fig. 1). Indeed, many patients reported increased pain instead of recovery throughout the rest period. More TTH patients than controls did not recover from pain after the rst 10 min of rest. This difference was observed in all regions (Table 3). After 30 min of rest, most TTH patients still had not recovered to baseline pain in the trapezius, temporalis and frontalis. More migraineurs than controls did not recover after 10 min of rest in the

Table 2 Pain test responses [VAS scale (mm), median (range)], and the number (%) of patients who developed pain during the cognitive stress test Controls (n = 44) Location Trapezius Splenius Temporalis Frontalis
1 2

Migraine (n = 22) n response > 0 26 (59%) 25 (55%) 16 (36%) 19 (45%) Response 11.0 (044) 17.0 (054)1 4.0 (049)1,3 1.0 (-642)2,3 n response > 0 17 (77%) 17 (77%) 14 (68%) 13 (55%)

Tension-type headache (n = 17*) Response 15.0 (-588) 11.0 (-1968) 11.0 (-671)1 14.0 (-1966)1 n response > 0 13 (76%) 13 (76%) 13 (76%) 12 (71%)

Response 6.0 (-748) 5.0 (-241) 0.0 (-257)2,3 0.0 (049)2,3

Patients vs. controls, P 0.05. Patients vs. controls, 0.05 < P < 0.1 (MannWhitney tests). Within-group different from trapezius, P 0.05. 3 Within-group different from splenius, P 0.05 (Wilcoxon tests). *Pain data during the stress test are missing for one tension-type headache patient.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

68

RB Leistad et al.
Controls Migraine TTH

40 Pain score (VAS 0100) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 40 35 Pain score (VAS 0100) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20

Trapezius

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Splenius

Temporalis

Frontalis

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40 60 Time (min)

80

100

20

40 60 Time (min)

80

100

Figure 1 Mean pain (SEM) development as a function of time in the four muscle regions for the three subject groups. The group means were calculated from the average of left and right values for each subject in the group. These graphs deviate accordingly slightly from the median values reported in Table 2. T = 0 min, baseline pain; T = 1060 min, during the cognitive stress test; T = 6595 min, relaxation period after the test. Migraineurs had more baseline pain in the temporalis (P = 0.073) and frontalis (P = 0.038) than controls, while tension-type headache patients had more baseline pain in the neck (P = 0.014), temporalis (P < 0.0005) and frontalis (P < 0.0005) compared with controls, and more baseline pain in the temporalis (P = 0.003) and frontalis (P = 0.048) compared with migraineurs. Both patients and controls had signicantly increased pain during the test compared with baseline values (P 0.05). Table 3 Number (%) of patients who did not return to baseline pain during the early (after 15 min of rest, t = 75 min) and the late (after 35 min of rest, t = 95 min) recovery phases Controls (n = 44) Location Trapezius Splenius Temporalis Frontalis
1 2

Migraine (n = 22) Late nonrecovery 12 (27%) 17 (39%) 7 (16%) 6 (14%) Early nonrecovery 12 (55%)1 11 (50%) 10 (48%)1 8 (36%) Late nonrecovery 11 (50%) 12 (55%) 8 (38%)1, 3 (14%)2

Tension-type headache (n = 18) Early nonrecovery 10 (56%)1 13 (75%)1 11 (63%)1 10 (56%)1 Late nonrecovery 11 (63%)1,* 10 (56%) 11 (63%)1 9 (50%)1

Early nonrecovery 12 (27%) 15 (34%) 6 (14%) 7 (16%)

Patients vs. controls, P 0.05. Patients vs. controls, 0.05 < P < 0.1. Migraine vs. tension-type headache (TTH), P = 0.05. Migraine vs. TTH, 0.05 < P < 0.1 (Pearson c2 tests). *One patient had more pain during late than early recovery.

trapezius and temporalis. After 30 min of rest, pain recovery in migraineurs differed signicantly from controls in the temporalis, while a similar trend was observed in the trapezius (P = 0.07).

EMG responses during cognitive stress compared with baseline EMG

We found a signicant difference in temporalis EMG response in migraineurs compared with controls.

Apart from that, no signicant group differences in EMG responses were found (Fig. 2, Table 4). EMG increased most in the trapezius and frontalis, while mean activity was slightly reduced in the splenius (Table 4). With the exception of the temporalis, all EMG group responses were signicantly different from zero for both the TTH and control groups. Migraineurs had EMG responses signicantly different from zero in the trapezius, temporalis and frontalis.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTH

69

EMG recovery after cognitive stress

EMG activity decreased most in the trapezius and frontalis when the stress stimulus was stopped (Fig. 2), and mean EMG activity was generally stable during the 30 min of recovery in all groups. TTH patients had signicantly delayed EMG recovery in the trapezius compared with both controls and migraineurs (Table 4).

Pain and EMG change during sustained stress

Pain also increased signicantly during the test, from the 10th to the 60th minute, for all groups (Fig. 1), with the exception of the frontalis area in migraineurs, where only a trend was observed (P = 0.055; ANOVA time factor). Pain increased more during the test in TTH patients compared with controls in three areas (trapezius P = 0.035, neck

20

Trapezius

Splenius

Controls Migraine TTH 20

15 SEMG (mV)

15

10

10

0 20 Temporalis 15 SEMG (mV) Frontalis

0 20

15

10

10

0
fb 0 10 10 2 0 20 3 0 30 4 0 40 5 0 50 6 0 65 7 5 75 8 5 85 9 5 fb 0 10 10 2 0 20 3 0 30 4 0 40 5 0 50 6 0 65 7 5 75 8 5 85 9 5 uir uir

Test period (min)

Test period (min)

Figure 2 Electromyographic (EMG) activity as a function of time in the four muscle regions for the three subject groups. Values are given in mean (SEM). UIR, Uninstructed rest period (baseline EMG); FB, EMG feedback-aided rest period. 065, During the cognitive stress test; 6595, relaxation period after the test.

Table 4 Surface electromyographic responses (root mean square differences relative to uninstructed rest period baseline values in mV) during test (060 min mean), early recovery (6575 min) and late recovery (8595 min) Controls (n = 44) Location Trapezius Splenius Temporalis Frontalis Test response 5.1 (11.4) -0.7 (3.1) 0.5 (5.4) 3.2 (4.8) Early recovery -0.8 (6.2) -0.6 (2.7) 1.2 (4.0) 1.0 (3.8) Late recovery 0.01 (7.7) -0.3 (3.6) 0.7 (3.8) 0.3 (3.9) Migraine (n = 22) Test response 4.6 (6.3) -0.2 (2.2) 1.5 (2.1)1 4.2 (4.0) Early recovery 0.3 (5.5)2 -0.05 (2.3) 1.8 (2.5) 1.4 (2.7) Late recovery 0.1 (3.3)2 -0.5 (4.3) 1.4 (2.2) 1.2 (2.2) Tension-type headache (n = 18) Test response 4.8 (6.9) -0.5 (0.9) 0.3 (2.5) 3.1 (3.3) Early recovery 2.6 (3.9)1 0.3 (1.4) 1.4 (5.2) 1.2 (3.7) Late recovery 2.4 (3.1)1 0.1 (1.4) 0.2 (2.3) 0.8 (3.3)

Values reported are mean (SD), using the average of left- and right-side measurements. 1 Patients vs. controls, P 0.05. Patients vs. controls, 0.05 < P < 0.1. 2 Migraine vs. TTH, P 0.05 (MannWhitney tests).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

70

RB Leistad et al. Comparing headache intensity before and after the stress test (paired Wilcoxon tests) did not show a signicant increase for any of the groups (Table 1).

P = 0.001, temporalis P = 0.02, frontalis P = 0.12; ANOVA time group interaction). TTH patients also had a higher increase in pain from the 10th to the 60th minute compared with migraineurs in the temporalis area (P = 0.023; ANOVA time group interaction). Pain increase was similar in migraine patients and controls for all muscle areas (P > 0.4; ANOVA time group interaction). EMG levels were stable during test with two exceptions (Fig. 2). Frontalis EMG increased in TTH patients (P = 0.001; ANOVA time factor) and trapezius EMG increased in migraineurs (P = 0.009; ANOVA time factor). Group differences were not found.

EMG and pain responses related to the migraine cycle

Migraineurs who reported an attack within the next day had signicantly lower EMG response [2.6 (SD 2.1) mV vs. 5.8 (4.9) mV, P = 0.028] in the frontalis region and early EMG recovery response [1.1 (2.9) mV vs. 2.4 (2.1) mV, P = 0.047] in the temporalis region, compared with those who did not have an attack within the next day. Migraine patients who had experienced an attack within 2 days before the stress test had a higher EMG response in the trapezius during the test [7.4 (4.9) mV vs. 0.5 (6.2) mV, P = 0.004]. Pain responses did not differ between attack-related subgroups.

Correlations between pain and EMG

Correlation analyses were done in order to establish if EMG responses could predict pain responses. Similar analyses were done for baseline EMG vs. pain responses and baseline pain vs. EMG responses. EMG responses were not signicantly correlated with pain responses either for migraine or TTH. For patients with TTH, it was found that pain responses correlated negatively with baseline EMG in the frontalis (rs = -0.589, P = 0.013). A trend was also found towards a negative correlation between baseline EMG and baseline pain in the trapezius for these patients (rs = -0.434, P = 0.072). In migraineurs, a signicant correlation between baseline pain and EMG response in the trapezius was found (rs = 0.445, P = 0.038). The majority of EMGpain correlations in patients were accordingly not signicant. EMG and pain variables were not signicantly correlated in control subjects.

Discussion
Migraineurs had signicantly higher neck (splenius) pain responses compared with controls. Neck pain has previously been reported in 75% of migraine patients associated with either the prodrome, headache or postictal phase (22). Because higher neck pain responses occurred with slightly reduced EMG activation, pain can not have been caused by muscular activity, and we suggest that migraineurs may be sensitized to pain in upper cervical as well as trigeminally innervated regions. Either peripheral nociceptor senistization or upper cervical central pain sensitization may be present. The lack of EMG abnormalities in migraineurs are in concordance with old results published by Anderson and Franks (23), but since their study design (e.g. measuring stress responses to serial sevens), as well as the designs of other old EMG studies in migraine, were different from ours the results are probably not comparable. Neck pain may be the rst step towards a migraine attack because 50% of our patients reported an attack within the day following the stress test. This is in concordance with Kaniecki (22). Another important observation is that migraineurs developed more pain (headache) in the temporalis area than healthy subjects, but not in the frontal region. This pattern differs from the most usual frontotemporal location of initial headache during the migraine attack (24), suggesting that stress-induced pain in migraineurs evolves through a mechanism different from the migraine attack.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

Background variables vs. test responses

General tension during the last 23 months was correlated with pain responses in the shoulders (rs = 0.37, P = 0.015) and neck (rs = 0.36, P = 0.016) in controls. Similar correlations were not found in the patient groups. We found no differences in tension responses during the test (data not shown) between the three groups. No correlations between tension and pain responses were found for controls or migraineurs. One signicant correlation between neck pain response and tension (rs = 0.544, P = 0.024) was found for patients with TTH. There were no statistical differences in pain responses between episodic and chronic TTH. Consistent differences between migraine subgroups with and without aura were not found. Headache duration did not correlate with pain of EMG responses.

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTH TTH patients had pain responses of equal magnitude in all locations, while controls (and migraineurs) had less pain in the head compared with the shoulder and neck. Pain increased more during the test in TTH patients compared with controls. Because we kept the stress stimulus level constant, it is possible that this pain potentiation reects temporal summation, a mechanism which has been associated with central sensitization (25). In addition, TTH patients (and migraine patients to a lesser degree) failed to recover from pain during the rest period. Aftersensations, dened as pain perceived after a stimulus has ended, have been found in experimental conditions which induce central sensitization (26). Prolonged pain in TTH after stress may reect such long-lasting aftersensations. This interpretation is also compatible with studies that suggest that central sensitization is important in TTH (12, 27) and migraine (28, 29). To summarize, the widespread pain response (suggesting muscular hyperalgesia), the pain potentiation during sustained stress (accompanied by largely constant EMG levels) and the slow pain recovery support the role of central pain sensitization in TTH (30). The less pronounced, more localized increased muscular pain response and the delay in pain recovery with less potentiation in migraine are more difcult to interpret. Sensitization of muscular nociceptors in the neck and temple or partial central cervical and trigeminal segmental sensitization are possible mechanisms. Pain responses were associated with increased general tension only in headache-free subjects, indicating that the putative central sensitization state in headache is not necessarily experienced consciously, at least not as general tension, perhaps because mainly subcortical structures are involved. We did not measure perceived stress in the present study. Subjective tension was scored during the stress test, however, and this variable may partly reect perceived stress as well as muscular factors (31). The correlation between neck pain and tension during the test in TTH patients indicates that muscular pain also may contribute to perceived tension. Because no tension response group differences were found, we conclude that the level of test-related stress were probably similar between groups in the present study. In TTH patients there was also a lack of EMG recovery in the trapezius after stress. Conicting results concerning EMG recovery have been published, but older studies have methodological weaknesses (reviewed by Flor and Turk (32)). The response to stress seems accordingly to be stronger,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

71

less localized, more prolonged, and also involving the motor system to a larger extent in TTH compared with migraine. Both pain processing, possibly including the muscle-specic part of the homeostatic lamina 1 system (33), and central motor control may accordingly be sensitized in TTH. The so-called emotional motor system, causing involuntary modulation of motor neuron excitability as a response to stressful stimuli or emotional reactions, possibly also modulating pain, is of particular relevance in this respect (11). The lack of difference in muscular activity between controls and patients with TTH in the present study is in concordance with a study published by Schoenen et al. (8). They found that EMG activity in pericranial muscles during postural changes and mental activity in patients with chronic TTH was not different from healthy controls. Our results are, moreover, partly in concordance with the results published by Bansevicius et al. (14), who used the same cognitive stressors as in the present study. They found a higher EMG response for patients with TTH than in controls in the splenius and trapezius, but it turns out that the discrepancy is apparently related mainly to a lower control group EMG response than in our study. It is also possible that patients recruited from our tertiary headache department were more severely affected than TTH patients recruited mainly from primary care physicians in the previous study. Several other studies also suggest that muscular activity is normal or only slightly increased, being hardly sufcient to explain pain in TTH (34). Clark et al. (35) recorded temporalis muscle EMG and level of stress and pain every 30 min for 6 days, and found no correlation between pain and EMG. Mrk et al. (36) found no increase in EMG related to experimentally induced muscle pain in episodic TTH. It is nevertheless possible that low-level single motor unit exhaustion can contribute to chronic muscle pain generation (37). If so, one would not expect to nd a correlation between cognitive stress-induced surface EMG and induced pain. Anderson and Franks (23) reported a negative association between pain and frontalis EMG in TTH. The presence of pain-induced EMG agonist inhibition (38) may obscure a tentative causal relationship between muscular activity and pain. Our results suggest that central motor excitability to stress may decrease before a migraine attack and increase after the attack. Most transcranial magnetic stimulation studies of motor cortex in migraine report reduced interictal motor cortex excitability (TMS) (39), but motor excitability studies have

72

RB Leistad et al. headache-free subjects. Delayed pain recovery was observed mainly in TTH, but also in migraine patients, possibly indicating long-lasting aftersensations and central sensitization. Patients with TTH developed a more generalized pain in the shoulders, neck and head, possibly suggesting a more widespread central sensitization in TTH than in migraine. Migraineurs failed to report signicant stressinduced frontal headache, but they did experience muscular hyperalgesia in the neck and temple. No marked differences were found between the three groups in EMG responses during stress, and pain responses could not be explained by EMG activation. Prolonged EMG activity was observed after stress in TTH patients, possibly suggesting that defective inhibition involves both pain and the motor system. Our data suggest, but do not prove, that motor excitability is modulated through the migraine cycle. Further studies of the link between pain and central motor systems in TTH and migraine are needed.

apparently not yet been performed through the complete migraine cycle. Cyclic variation has also been found in cognitive evoked responses, i.e. increased P300 (40) and contingent negative variation (41) amplitudes before the attack. It remains to be explained how increased responsitivity to cognitive tasks may be linked to decreased motor excitability. Pretest stress could possibly inuence the baseline state of the central (homeostatic) pain and motor systems. However, baseline tension, fatigue and sleepiness were not signicantly different between any of the three groups (data not shown). The patients followed a standardized procedure, including information and familiarization with the laboratory and the procedure before the test started. For these reasons, we believe that pretest stress was similar in the three groups. In addition, pain and EMG response variables are probably less inuenced by pretest conditions compared with absolute pain and EMG levels used in several previous studies (8, 9). The proportion of men was higher among the TTH patients than the other groups. No statistical differences in pain responses between healthy men and women were found, and we accordingly do not believe that the gender distribution invalidates our results. Because men generally report less pain than women (42), it seems likely that even higher levels of pain would have been reported for TTH patients if there had been more women in this group. Indeed, male TTH patients reported signicantly less pain than women with TTH in the trapezius and temporalis during the rest period (results not shown). We have not focused on the difference between pain in the specied head regions and headache as such in our study (a distinction which may be difcult in any case). We had no control group not exposed to stress, and we therefore do not know the spontaneous 2-h incidence of head or neck pain. As far as we know, there are no data on this in the literature. Since the overall point prevalence of headache in the general population has been found to be as high as 16% (43), one cannot exclude the possibility that some patients may have had random spontaneous headache uctuations during the test. However, since no patients had to abort the study because of a new headache attack, headache intensity before and after the test was not signicantly different in any group, and pain tended to return towards the baseline after the stress period (Fig. 1), it may be assumed that the pain in most subjects was related to the stressor. In conclusion, migraineurs as well as patients with TTH respond to cognitive stress with more pain than

References
1 Zivadinov R, Willheim K, Sepic-Grahovac D, Jurjevic A, Bucuk M, Brnabic-Razmilic O et al. Migraine and tensiontype headache in Croatia: a population-based survey of precipitating factors. Cephalalgia 2003; 23:33643. 2 Spierings EL, Ranke AH, Honkoop PC. Precipitating and aggravating factors of migraine versus tension-type headache. Headache 2001; 41:5548. 3 Martin PR, Soon K. The relationship between perceived stress, social support and chronic headaches. Headache 1993; 33:30714. 4 Wacogne C, Lacoste J, Guillibert E, Hugues F, Le Jeunne C. Stress, anxiety, depression and migraine. Cephalalgia 2003; 23:4515. 5 McEwen BS. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1719. 6 Eriksen HR, Ursin H. Sensitization and subjective health complaints. Scand J Psychol 2002; 43:18996. 7 Westgaard RH. Muscle activity as a releasing factor for pain in the shoulder and neck. Cephalalgia 1999; 19 (Suppl. 25):18. 8 Schoenen J, Gerard P, De Pasqua V, Juprelle M. EMG activity in pericranial muscles during postural variation and mental activity in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic tension type headache. Headache 1991; 31:3214. 9 Jensen R, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Olesen J. Quantitative surface EMG of pericranial muscles in headache. A population study. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 93:33544. 10 Rollnik JD, Karst M, Fink M, Dengler R. Botulinum toxin type A and EMG: a key to the understanding of chronic tension-type headaches? Headache 2001; 41:9859. 11 Holstege G. The emotional motor system. Eur J Morph 1992; 30:6779.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473

Stress-induced pain and muscle activity in patients with migraine and TTH
12 Bendtsen L. Central sensitization in tension-type headachepossible pathophysiological mechanisms. Cephalalgia 2000; 20:486508. 13 Burstein R. Deconstructing migraine headache into peripheral and central sensitization. Pain 2001; 89:10710. 14 Bansevicius D, Westgaard RH, Sjaastad OM. Tension-type headache: pain, fatigue, tension, and EMG responses to mental activation. Headache 1999; 39:41725. 15 Bansevicius D, Sjaastad O. Cervicogenic headache: the inuence of mental load on pain level and EMG of shoulder-neck and facial muscles. Headache 1996; 36:3728. 16 Bansevicius D, Westgaard RH, Stiles T. EMG activity and pain development in bromyalgia patients exposed to mental stress of long duration. Scand J Rheumatol 2001; 30:928. 17 Bansevicius D, Westgaard RH, Jensen C. Mental stress of long duration: EMG activity, perceived tension, fatigue, and pain development in pain-free subjects. Headache 1997; 37:499510. 18 Headache Classication Committee of the International Headache Society. Classication and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988; 8 (Suppl. 7):196. 19 Bayer TL, Baer PE, Early C. Situational and psychophysiological factors in psychologically induced pain. Pain 1991; 44:4550. 20 Westgaard RH, Bjrklund R. Generation of muscle tension additional to postural muscle load. Ergonomics 1987; 30:91123. 21 Waersted M, Bjrklund RA, Westgaard RH. The effect of motivation on shoulder-muscle tension in attentiondemanding tasks. Ergonomics 1994; 37:36376. 22 Kaniecki RG. Migraine and tension-type headache: an assessment of challenges in diagnosis. Neurology 2002; 58:S15S20. 23 Anderson CD, Franks RD. Migraine and tension headache: is there a physiological difference? Headache 1981; 21:63 71. 24 Sjaastad O, Bovim G, Stovner LJ. Common migraine (migraine without aura): localization of the initial pain of attack. Funct Neurol 1993; 8:2732. 25 Eide PK. Wind-up and the NMDA receptor complex from a clinical perspective. Eur J Pain 2000; 4:515. 26 Gottrup H, Kristensen AD, Bach FW, Jensen TS. Aftersensations in experimental and clinical hypersensitivity. Pain 2003; 103:5764. 27 Jensen R, Olesen J. Initiating mechanisms of experimentally induced tension-type headache. Cephalalgia 1996; 16:17582; discussion 13. 28 Malick A, Burstein R. Peripheral and central sensitization during migraine. Funct Neurol 2000; 15 (Suppl. 3):2835.

73

29 Yamamura H, Malick A, Chamberlin NL, Burstein R. Cardiovascular and neuronal responses to head stimulation reect central sensitization and cutaneous allodynia in a rat model of migraine. J Neurophysiol 1999; 81:47993. 30 Bendtsen L. Central and peripheral sensitization in tension-type headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2003; 7:4605. 31 Holte KA, Vasseljen O, Westgaard RH. Exploring perceived tension as a response to psychosocial work stress. Scand J Work Environ Health 2003; 29:12433. 32 Flor H, Turk DC. Psychophysiology of chronic pain: do chronic pain patients exhibit symptom-specic psychophysiological responses? Psychol Bull 1989; 105:21559. 33 Craig AD. A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends Neurosci 2003; 26:3037. 34 Jensen R. Pathophysiological mechanisms of tension-type headache: a review of epidemiological and experimental studies. Cephalalgia 1999; 19:60221. 35 Clark GT, Sakai S, Merrill R, Flack VF, McCreary C. Crosscorrelation between stress, pain, physical activity, and temporalis muscle EMG in tension-type headache. Cephalalgia 1995; 15:5118; discussion 451. 36 Mrk H, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Olesen J, Jensen R. Possible mechanisms of pain perception in patients with episodic tension-type headache. A new experimental model of myofascial pain. Cephalalgia 2004; 24:46675. 37 Westgaard RH. Effects of physical and mental stressors on muscle pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999; 25 (Suppl. 4):1924. 38 Lund JP, Donga R, Widmer CG, Stohler CS. The painadaptation model: a discussion of the relationship between chronic musculoskeletal pain and motor activity. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1991; 69:68394. 39 Schoenen J, Ambrosini A, Sndor PS, Maertens de Noordhout A. Evoked potentials and transcranial magnetic stimulation in migraine: published data and viewpoint on their pathophysiologic signicance. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114:95572. 40 Siniatchkin M, Gerber WD, Kropp P, Vein A. How the brain anticipates an attack: a study of neurophysiological periodicity in migraine. Funct Neurol 1999; 14:6977. 41 Kropp P, Gerber WD. Prediction of migraine attacks using a slow cortical potential, the contingent negative variation. Neurosci Lett 1998; 257:736. 42 Vallerand AH, Polomano RC. The relationship of gender to pain. Pain Manag Nurs 2000; 1:815. 43 Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Schroll M, Olesen J. Epidemiology of headache in a general populationa prevalence study. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:114757.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cephalalgia, 2005, 26, 6473