Somatic and vicarious pain are represented by dissociable multivariate brain patterns

Thank you for submitting your article "Somatic and vicarious pain are represented by dissociable multivariate brain patterns" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by Peggy Mason, with Jody Culham as the Senior Editor.

Because your original submission indicated that this manuscript had already undergone substantive reviews at two other high-profile journals (including six external reviewers altogether and two rounds of review at one of the journals), our editorial team carefully examined those reviews and your responses to them. In addition, your manuscript was thoroughly reviewed and evaluated by a Reviewing Editor (Peggy Mason). In our view, this mode of evaluation was the optimal use of the time and energy of reviewers, authors and editors. Ultimately, we are pleased that this approach allowed us to expedite the review process for your work by taking into consideration the considerable efforts you had already invested in addressing past reviewers' and editors' concerns satisfactorily.

This is a very important paper. It tackles a finding that in no short order became dogma and even slipped into popular 'fact.' The authors clearly demonstrate that the conflation of the brain representations of self and other pain is not warranted and that has been 'verified' without the simple but telling tests that the authors use in this paper. In particular, the authors compare 3 different intensities and 2 different locations and then toss in two additional modalities at single intensity and location. The work is compelling and shows that the somatic pain signature is different from the vicarious pain one. The important take-home message is (in the authors words) that "vicarious pain does not involve re-activation of somatosensory representations. Rather, body site-specific representations of vicarious pain may be accomplished using the mPFC 'mentalizing' system and perhaps other ideomotor systems."

The reviewing editor raised the following point that should be addressed in a revision:

Could the authors discuss in a concise way why they think that previous studies have come up with a different answer? While I am convinced by the data, I am puzzled by the long record of studies concluding the opposite. This may be in the Discussion already but if it is, it is not concise or punchy and does not stand out. Consequently, I did not see such a treatment although I was looking for it.