Figures and data in Neural mechanisms of modulations of empathy and altruism by beliefs of others’ pain

Figures
Tables
Additional files

7 figures, 1 table and 22 additional files

Figures

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Behavioral results in Experiment 1.

(a) Mean rating scores of pain intensity in the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. (b) Mean amounts of monetary donations in the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (a) and (b). (c) The associations between rating scores of pain intensity and amounts of monetary donations for patients in the 1st_round test and for actors/actresses in the 2nd_round test. (d) The associations between rating scores of pain intensity and amounts of monetary donations for patients in both the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. (e) Rating scores of pain intensity partially mediate the relationship between patient-identity change and reduced monetary donations. (f) Rating scores of pain intensity mediate the relationship between patient-identity repetition and increased monetary donations.

Figure 1—source data 1 Pain intensity rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig1-data1-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig1-data1-v3.csv
Figure 1—source data 2 Amounts of monetary donations.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig1-data2-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig1-data2-v3.csv

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Behavioral results in Experiment 2.

The relationships between intrinsic BOP (indexed by the rating score of effective medical treatments) and scores of pain intensity (a), own unpleasantness (b), and monetary donations (c), respectively, across the 16 models in the 1st_round test in each participant. The regression line of each participant is plotted in (**a–c**). (**d–f**) Mean rating scores of pain intensity, own unpleasantness, and monetary donations in the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. (g) The associations between rating scores of pain intensity and amounts of monetary donations for patients in the 1st_round test and for 100% effective patients in the 2nd_round test across all the participants. (h) The associations between rating scores of own unpleasantness and amounts of monetary donations for patients in the 1st_round test and for 100% effective patients in the 2nd_round test across all the participants. (i) The associations between rating scores of pain intensity and amounts of monetary donations for patients in the 1st_round test and for 0% effective patients in the 2nd_round test across all the participants. (j) The associations between rating scores of own unpleasantness and amounts of monetary donations for patients in the 1st_round test and for 0% effective patients in the 2nd_round test across all the participants. (k) Rating scores of pain intensity change partially mediate the relationship between decreased BOP and changes in monetary donations. (l) Rating scores of pain intensity change fail to mediate the relationship between enhanced BOP and changes in monetary donations. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (**d–f**). BOP, beliefs of others’ pain.

Figure 2—source data 1 Pain intensity rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig2-data1-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig2-data1-v3.csv
Figure 2—source data 2 Own unpleasantness rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig2-data2-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig2-data2-v3.csv
Figure 2—source data 3 Amounts of monetary donations.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig2-data3-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig2-data3-v3.csv

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

EEG results of Experiment 3.

(a) Mean rating scores of pain intensity to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with patient or actor/actress identities. (b) ERPs to faces with patient or actor/actress identities at frontal electrodes. The voltage topography shows the scalp distribution of the P2 amplitude with the maximum over the central/frontal region. (c) Mean differential P2 amplitudes to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with patient or actor/actress identities. The voltage topographies illustrate the scalp distribution of the P2 difference waves to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with patient or actor/actress identities, respectively. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (a) and (c). EEG, electroencephalography; ERP, event-related potential.

Figure 3—source data 1 Pain intensity rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig3-data1-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig3-data1-v3.csv
Figure 3—source data 2 Mean differential P2 amplitudes.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig3-data2-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig3-data2-v3.csv

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

EEG results of Experiment 4.

(a) Mean rating scores of pain intensity to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with Lion or Tiger team identities. (b) ERPs to faces with Lion/Tiger team identities at frontal electrodes. The voltage topography shows the scalp distribution of the P2 amplitude with the maximum over the central/frontal region. (c) Mean differential P2 amplitudes to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with Lion/Tiger team identities. The voltage topographies illustrate the scalp distribution of the P2 difference waves to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with the Lion/Tiger team identities, respectively. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (a) and (c). EEG, electroencephalography; ERP, event-related potential.

Figure 4—source data 1 Pain intensity rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig4-data1-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig4-data1-v3.csv
Figure 4—source data 2 Mean differential P2 amplitudes.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig4-data2-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig4-data2-v3.csv

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Behavioral and EEG results of Experiment 5.

(a) Mean rating scores of pain intensity in the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. (b) Mean amounts of monetary donations in the 1st_round and 2nd_round tests. (c) ERPs to faces with patient or actor/actress identities at frontal electrodes. The voltage topography shows the scalp distribution of the P2 amplitude with the maximum over the central/frontal region. (d) Mean differential P2 amplitudes to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with patient or actor/actress identities. The voltage topographies illustrate the scalp distribution of the P2 difference waves to pain versus neutral expressions of faces with patient or actor/actress identities, respectively. (e) Illustration of the serial mediation model of the relationship between decreased BOP and changes in monetary donations. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (a), (b), and (d). BOP, beliefs of others’ pain; EEG, electroencephalography; ERP, event-related potential.

Figure 5—source data 1 Pain intensity rating scores.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig5-data1-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig5-data1-v3.csv
Figure 5—source data 2 Amounts of monetary donations.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig5-data2-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig5-data2-v3.csv
Figure 5—source data 3 Mean differential P2 amplitudes.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig5-data3-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig5-data3-v3.csv

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

fMRI results of Experiment 6.

(a) Brain activations in response to perceived painful (vs. non-painful) stimuli applied to targets (collapsed faces with patient and actor/actress identities). (b) Brain activations in response to non-painful stimuli to patients compared to actors/actresses. (c) Illustration of the behavioral dissimilarity matrix (DM) derived from the rating scores of pain intensity across all participants. Each cell in the DM represents the mean difference in rating scores of pain intensity between each pair of conditions. (d) Brain activations that were correlated with the behavioral DM revealed in the searchlight RSA. (e) Illustration of the vicarious pain signature (defined by response to perceived noxious stimulation of body limbs) responses to patients’ and to actors/actresses’ pain. (f) Illustration of the general vicarious signature (defined by response to perceived noxious stimulation of body limbs and painful facial expressions) responses to patients’ and actors/actresses’ pain. AI, anterior insula; FG, frontal gyrus; IPL, inferior parietal lobe; ITG, inferior temporal gyrus; MFC, middle frontal cortex; mPFC, medial prefrontal cortex; PoCG, post-central gyrus; RSA, representational similarity analysis; SPL, superior parietal lobe; STS, superior temporal sulcus; TPJ, temporoparietal junction.

Figure 6—source data 1 Brain activations in response to painful vs. non-painful stimuli (collapsed faces with patient and actor/actress identities).: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data1-v3.zip
Download elife-66043-fig6-data1-v3.zip
Figure 6—source data 2 Brain activations in response to non-painful stimuli to patients compared to actors/actresses.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data2-v3.zip
Download elife-66043-fig6-data2-v3.zip
Figure 6—source data 3 Behavioral dissimilarity matrix derived from the rating scores of pain intensity across all participants.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data3-v3.mat
Download elife-66043-fig6-data3-v3.mat
Figure 6—source data 4 Brain activations that were correlated with the behavioral dissimilarity matrix revealed in the searchlight RSA.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data4-v3.zip
Download elife-66043-fig6-data4-v3.zip
Figure 6—source data 5 Data of the vicarious pain signature.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data5-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig6-data5-v3.csv
Figure 6—source data 6 Data of the general vicarious pain signature.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-fig6-data6-v3.csv
Download elife-66043-fig6-data6-v3.csv

Appendix 1—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

EEG results of the additional experiment.

(a) Mean rating scores of happy intensity related to happy and neutral expressions of faces with awardee or actor/actress identities. (b) ERPs to faces with awardee or actor/actress identities at frontal electrodes. The voltage topography shows the scalp distribution of the P570 amplitude with the maximum over the central/parietal region. (c) Mean differential P570 amplitudes to happy versus neutral expressions of faces with awardee or actor/actress identities. The voltage topographies illustrate the scalp distribution of the P570 difference waves to happy (vs. neutral) expressions of faces with awardee or actor/actress identities, respectively. Shown are group means (large dots), standard deviation (bars), measures of each individual participant (small dots), and distribution (violin shape) in (a) and (c). EEG, electroencephalography; ERP, event-related potential.

Appendix 1—figure 1—source data 1 Happy intensity rating scores and Mean differential P570 amplitudes.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66043/elife-66043-app1-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx
Download elife-66043-app1-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx

Tables

Appendix 1—table 1

RTs, accuracies, rating scores, numbers of ERP trials, and ERP amplitudes (mean±SD) in the additional experiment.

		Awardee			Actor/Actress
		Neutral	Happy		Neutral		Happy
RT (ms)		654±63	657±60		666±64		680±66
Accuracy (%)		92±4.9	90±7.5		92±5.4		88±8.7
Happy intensity		2.525±0.94	5.638±0.64		2.146±0.94		4.95±0.96
N1 amplitude (μV)		−2.267±1.69	−2.606±1.75		−2.297±1.43		−2.620±1.52
P2 amplitude (μV)		2.544±2.64	2.375±2.30		2.940±2.56		2.593±2.56
P310 amplitude (μV)		3.449±3.45	3.445±3.30		3.492±3.38		3.376±3.38
P570 amplitude (μV)		4.677±2.22	5.379±2.15		4.696±2.16		4.950±2.11
ERP trials		114±10	110±13		113±11		108±12
	Statistic value	ANOVA				Simple effect (Identity)
	Value	Identity	Expression	Identity*Expression		Awardee	Actor/Actress
RT (ms)	F	13.229	11.256	4.733 0.7	0.915	13.230
	p	0.001	0.002	0.038	0.347	0.001
	η_p²	0.313	0.280	0.140	0.031	0.313
	90% CI	(0.094, 0.488)	(0.071, 0.459)	(0.004, 0.326)	(0, 0.180)	(0.094, 0.488)
Accuracy (%)	F	0.496	40.590	0.595
	p	0.487	<0.001	0.447
	η_p²	0.017	0.583	0.020
	90% CI	(0, 0.150)	(0.362, 0.698)	(0, 0.158)
Happy Intensity	F	19.512	422.774	6.610	433.364	302.128
	p	<0.001	<0.001	0.016	<0.001	<0.001
	η_p²	0.402	0.936	0.186	0.937	0.912
	90% CI	(0.166, 0.560)	(0.889, 0.953)	(0.021, 0.372)	(0.892, 0.955)	(0.849, 0.937)
N1 (95–115 ms)	F	0.031	9.890	0.005
	p	0.862	0.004	0.944
	η_p²	0.001	0.254	0.0002
	90% CI	(0, 0.041)	(0.055, 0.436)	(0, 0.007)
P2 (175–195 ms)	F	6.476	2.822	0.441
	p	0.017	0.104	0.512
	η_p²	0.183	0.089	0.015
	90% CI	(0.019, 0.369)	(0, 0.266)	(0, 0.145)
P310 (280–340 ms)	F	0.012	0.140	0.252
	p	0.913	0.711	0.619
	η_p²	0.0004	0.005	0.009
	90% CI	(0, 0.017)	(0, 0.106)	(0, 0.125)
P570 (500–700 ms)	F	1.948	20.752	4.832	20.880	3.375
	p	0.173	<0.001	0.036	<0.001	0.076
	η_p²	0.063	0.417	0.143	0.419	0.104
	90% CI	(0, 0.232)	(0.180, 0.572)	(0.005, 0.328)	(0.181, 0.573)	(0, 0.285)