276 variables constant while exploring specific learned effects on pain. In chapter 3 we discussed in detail that these types of models are necessary in studying nocebo effects, due to the multifaceted and convoluted nature of pain. But in utilizing experimental models, we and much of the field at large neglect to scrutinize the imbalances between epistemic accessibility to specific variables, and the ability to draw conclusions regarding a realistic and clinically relevant target system or process 83 such as nocebo hyperalgesia. There are lessons to be learned from decades of academic research into the modeling of hypothetical phenomena 83 for every branch of biobehavioral science. Such lessons may indicate that the field of nocebo research should progressively shift away from fundamental science –notwithstanding the invaluable scientific contribution of early fundamental research in any given field– and graduate to more ecologically valid research with a focus on clinical nocebo phenomena. Future directions and recommendations Considerations of the nature and content of our experimental models open new avenues for nocebo research as a model-based science. Currently, nocebo experiments typically induce hyperalgesia in healthy individuals, often building representational, idealized models of nocebo hyperalgesic effects, from acquisition to extinction. A vast array of scientific models are representational, in that they represent a selected aspect of the world, which is thus the model’s target system 83. Examples include the Bohr model of the atom, models of predator–prey interaction, the scale model of a bridge, and learned nocebo effects on experimentally induced pain. Different types of models could represent different aspects of the target system, or even distort the system or processes itself, raising the question what it means for an experimental model to represent a select part of a real or hypothetical phenomenon.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw