Abstract

Witnessing another person's suffering elicits vicarious brain activity in areas active when we ourselves are in pain. Whether this activity influences prosocial behavior remains debated. Here participants witnessed a confederate express pain via a reaction of the swatted hand or via a facial expression and could decide to reduce that pain by donating money. Participants donate more money on trials in which the confederate expressed more pain. EEG shows that activity of the SI hand region explains variance in donation; TMS shows that altering this activity interferes with the pain-donation coupling only when pain is expressed by the hand and HD-tDCS that altering SI activity also interferes with pain perception. These experiments show vicarious somatosensory activations contribute to prosocial decision-making and suggest they do so by helping transform observed reactions of affected body-parts into accurate perceptions of pain that are necessary for decision making.

Data availability

fMRI and EEG data have been deposited in Zenodo. Source data files have been provided for all figures

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Selene Gallo

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Riccardo Paracampo

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laura Müller-Pinzler

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mario Carlo Severo

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7403-819X
  5. Laila Blömer

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Carolina Fernandes-Henriques

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Anna Henschel

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Balint Kalista Lammes

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Tatjana Maskaljunas

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Judith Suttrup

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4034-1534
  11. Alessio Avenanti

    Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1139-9996
  12. Christian Keysers

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Valeria Gazzola

    Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    v.gazzola@nin.knaw.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0324-0619

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VIDI: 452-14-015)

  • Valeria Gazzola

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD young investigator 22453)

  • Valeria Gazzola

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-StG-312511)

  • Christian Keysers

Cogito Foundation (R-117/13)

  • Alessio Avenanti

Fundação Bial (298/16)

  • Alessio Avenanti

Cogito Foundation (14-139-R)

  • Alessio Avenanti

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Peggy Mason, University of Chicago, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: All studies have been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Project identifiers:2016-BC-73942016-BC-71302016-PSY-64852014-EXT-34762014-EXT-3432All participants received monetary compensation and gave their informed consent for participation in the study.

Version history

  1. Received: October 12, 2017
  2. Accepted: April 20, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 8, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 29, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Gallo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,203
    views
  • 705
    downloads
  • 63
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Selene Gallo
  2. Riccardo Paracampo
  3. Laura Müller-Pinzler
  4. Mario Carlo Severo
  5. Laila Blömer
  6. Carolina Fernandes-Henriques
  7. Anna Henschel
  8. Balint Kalista Lammes
  9. Tatjana Maskaljunas
  10. Judith Suttrup
  11. Alessio Avenanti
  12. Christian Keysers
  13. Valeria Gazzola
(2018)
The causal role of the somatosensory cortex in prosocial behaviour
eLife 7:e32740.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32740

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32740

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.