Empathy enables us to share and understand the emotional states of other people, often based on their facial expressions. This empathic response involves being able to distinguish our own emotional state from someone else’s, and it is influenced by how we recognize that person’s emotion. In real life, knowing and identifying whether the facial expression we are witnessing reflects genuine or pretended pain is particularly important so that we can appropriately react to someone’s emotions and avoid unnecessary personal distress.

How our brains manage to do this is still heavily debated. Two areas, the anterior insular (aIns for short) and the mid-cingulate cortex, appear to be activated when someone ‘feels’ someone else’s pain. However, these regions might just automatically be triggered by vivid emotional facial expressions, regardless of whether we really respond to that pain.

To examine this question, Zhao et al. measured brain activity as healthy adults watched video clips of people either feeling or pretending to feel pain. The activation of aIns was particularly related to the emotional component that someone shared with another person’s genuine pain, but not to pretended pain. This suggests that neurons in the aIns track a truly empathic response when seeing someone who is actually experiencing pain.

Effective connectivity analyses which reflect how brain areas ‘crosstalk’ also revealed distinct patterns when people viewed expressions of genuine, as opposed to pretended pain. Zhao et al. focused on the interactions between the alns and the right supramarginal gyrus, a brain region which helps to distinguish another person’s emotions from our own. This crosstalk tracked others’ feelings when participants viewed expressions of genuine but not of pretended pain.

Put together, these findings provide a more refined model of empathy and its neural underpinnings. This will help further our understanding of conditions such as autism or depression, in which a person’s social skills and emotional processing are impaired.

As social beings, our own affective states are influenced by other people’s feelings and affective states. The facial expression of pain by others acts as a distinctive cue to signal their pain to others, and thus results in sizeable affective responses in the observer. Certifying such responses as evidence for empathy, however, requires successful self-other distinction, the ability to distinguish the affective response experienced by ourselves from the affect experienced by the other person.

Studies using a wide variety of methods convergently have shown that observing others in pain engages neural responses aligning with those coding for the affective component of self-experienced pain, with the anterior insula (aIns) and the anterior mid-cingulate cortex (aMCC) being two key areas in which such an alignment has been detected (Lamm et al., 2011; Rütgen et al., 2015; Jauniaux et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020; Fallon et al., 2020, for meta-analyses). However, there is consistent debate on whether activity observed in these areas should indeed be related to the sharing of pain affect or whether it may not rather result from automatic responses to salient perceptual cues – with pain vividly expressed on the face being one particularly prominent example (Zaki et al., 2016, for review). It was thus one major aim of our study to address this question. In this respect, contextual factors, individuals’ appraisals, and attentional processes would all impact their exact response to the affective states of others (Gu and Han, 2007; Hein and Singer, 2008, for review; Lamm et al., 2010; Forbes and Hamilton, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). Recently, Coll et al., 2017 have thus proposed a framework that attempts to capture these influences on affect sharing and empathic responses. This model posits that individuals who see identical negative facial expressions of others may have different empathic responses due to distinct contextual information and that this may depend on identification of the underlying affective state displayed by the other. In the current functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we therefore created a situation where we varied the genuineness of the pain affect felt by participants while keeping the perceptual saliency (i.e., the quality and strength of pain expressions) identical. To this end, participants were shown video clips of other persons who supposedly displayed genuine pain on their face vs. merely pretended to be in pain. Note that for reasons of experimental control, all painful expressions on the videos had been acted. This enabled us to interpret possible differences between conditions to the observers’ appraisal of the situation rather than to putative visual and expressive differences. This way, we sought to identify the extent to which responses in affective nodes (such as the aIns and the aMCC) genuinely track the pain of others, rather than resulting predominantly from the salient facial expressions associated with the pain.

Another major aim of our study was to assess how self-other distinction allowed individuals to distinguish between the sharing of actual pain vs. regulating an inappropriate and potentially misleading ‘sharing’ of what in reality is only a pretended affective state. We focused on the right supramarginal gyrus (rSMG), which has been suggested to act as a major hub selectively engaged in affective self-other distinction (Silani et al., 2013; Steinbeis et al., 2015; Hoffmann et al., 2016; Bukowski et al., 2020). Though previous studies have indicated that rSMG is functionally connected with areas associated with affect processing (Mars et al., 2012; Bukowski et al., 2020), we lack more nuanced insights into how exactly rSMG interacts with these areas, and thus how it supports accurate empathic responses. Hence, we used dynamic causal modeling (DCM) to investigate the hypothesized brain patterns of affective responses and self-other distinction for the genuine and pretended pain situations, focusing on the aIns, aMCC, and their interaction with rSMG. Furthermore, we investigated the relationship between neural activity and behavioral responses as well as empathic traits. In line with the literature reviewed above, we expected that, on the behavioral level, genuine pain would result in – alongside the obvious other-oriented higher pain ratings – higher self-oriented unpleasantness ratings. On the neural level, we predicted aIns and aMCC to show a stronger response to the genuine expressions of pain, but that these areas would also respond to the pretended pain, but to a lower extent. Differences in rSMG engagement and distinct patterns of this area’s effective connectivity with aIns and aMCC were expected to relate to self-other distinction, and thus to explain the different empathic responses to genuine pain vs. pretended pain.

In this study, we developed and used a novel experimental paradigm in which participants watched video clips of persons who supposedly either genuinely experienced pain or merely pretended to be in strong pain. Combining mass-univariate analysis with effective connectivity (DCM) analyses, our study provides evidence on the distinct neural dynamics between regions suggestive of affect processing (i.e., aIns and aMCC) and self-other distinction (i.e., rSMG) for genuinely sharing vs. responding to pretended, non-genuine pain. With this, we aimed to clarify two main questions: First, whether neural responses in areas such as the aIns and aMCC to the pain of others are indeed related to a veridical sharing of affect, as opposed to simply tracking automatic responses to salient affective displays. And second, how processes related to self-other distinction, implemented in the rSMG, enable appropriate empathic responses to genuine vs. merely pretended affective states.

The mass-univariate analyses suggest that the increased activity in aIns for genuine pain as opposed to pretended pain properly reflects affect sharing. As aforementioned, the network of affective sharing and certain domain-general processes (e.g., salience detection and automatic emotion processing) overlap in aIns and aMCC (Zaki et al., 2016, for review). This indicates that indeed, part of the activation in these areas could be related to perceptual salience, which is why it has been widely debated as a potential confound of empathy and affect sharing models (Zaki et al., 2016, for review; Lamm et al., 2019, for review). However, when comparing genuine pain versus pretended pain, activity in these areas was not only found to be stronger in response to genuine pain, but the increased activation in aIns was also selectively correlated with ratings of self-oriented unpleasantness and was not correlated with either other-related painful expressions or painful feelings in terms of the regression analysis. That only aIns and not also aMCC shows such correlation may be explained by previous studies, according to which aIns is more specifically associated with affective representations, while the role of aMCC rather seems to evaluate and regulate emotions that arise due to empathy (Fan et al., 2011; Lamm et al., 2011; Jauniaux et al., 2019). Taken together, the activation and brain-behavior findings provide evidence that responses in aIns (and to a lesser extent also the aMCC) are not simply automatic responses triggered by perceptually salient events (otherwise the increased aIns activation should also be explained by other behavioral ratings in the sense of shared influence by domain-general effects). Rather, they seem to track the actual affective states of the other person, and thus the shared neural representation of that response (see Zhou et al., 2020, for similar recent conclusions based on multi-voxel pattern analyses). Our findings are also in line with the proposed model of Coll et al., 2017, which suggests that affect sharing is the consequence of emotion identification. More specifically, while part of the activation in the aIns and aMCC is indeed related to an (presumably earlier) automatic response, the added engagement of these areas once they have identified the pain as genuine shows that only in this condition, they then also engage in proper affect sharing. Ideally, one should be able to discern these processes in time, but neither the temporal resolution of our fMRI measurements nor the paradigm in which we always announced the conditions beforehand would have been sensitive enough to do so. Thus, future studies including complementary methods, such as EEG and MEG, and tailored experimental designs are needed to pinpoint the exact sequence of processes engaged in automatic affective responses vs. proper affect sharing.

Beyond higher activation in affective nodes supporting (pain) empathy, increased activation was also found in rSMG. The inferior parietal lobule was shown to be generally engaged in selective attention, action observation, and imitating emotions (Bach et al., 2010; Pokorny et al., 2015; Gola, 2017; Hawco et al., 2017). Importantly, a specific role in affective rather than cognitive self-other distinction has been identified for rSMG (Silani et al., 2013; Steinbeis et al., 2015; Bukowski et al., 2020). Based on such findings, it has been proposed that the rSMG allows for a rapid switching between or the integration of self- and other-related representations, as two processes that may underpin the functional basis of successful self-other distinction (Lamm et al., 2016, for review). Theoretical models of empathy and related socio-affective responses suggest that such regulation is especially important to avoid so-called empathic over-arousal, which would shift the focus away from empathy and the other’s needs, toward taking care of one’s own personal distress (Batson et al., 1987, for review; Decety and Lamm, 2011, for review). Concerning the current findings, we thus propose that the higher rSMG engagement in the genuine pain condition reflects an increasing demand for self-other distinction imposed by the stronger shared negative affect experienced in this condition.

Beyond these differences in the magnitude of rSMG activation, the DCM analysis demonstrated less inhibition on the aIns-to-rSMG connection for genuine pain compared to pretended pain. Note that our focus on the right aIns rather than bilateral aIns was because it is located in the same hemisphere as the right SMG. Various theoretical accounts suggest that areas such as the aIns and rSMG may play a key role in comparing self-related information with the sensory evidence (Decety and Lamm, 2007, for review; Seth, 2013, for review). According to recent theories on predictive processing (Clark, 2013, for review) and active inference (Friston, 2010, for review), the brain can be regarded as a “prediction machine”, in which the top-down signals pass over predictions and the bottom-up signals convey prediction errors across different levels of cortical hierarchies (Chen et al., 2009; Friston, 2010, for review; Bastos et al., 2015). It is suggested that these top-down predictions are mediated by inhibitory neural connections (Zhang et al., 2008; Bastos et al., 2015; Miska et al., 2018). Our findings align with such views, by suggesting that the inhibitory connection from aIns to rSMG can be explained as the predictive mismatch between the top-down predictions of self-related information (e.g., personal affect) and sensory inputs (e.g., pain facial expressions). This suppression of neural activity leads to an explaining away of incoming bottom-up prediction error. This is reflected by the absence of any condition-dependent modulatory effects on the rSMG to aIns connection, suggesting that the influence of the task conditions is sufficiently modeled by the predictions from aIns to rSMG. Therefore, the stronger inhibition for pretended pain, compared to genuine pain, could indicate a higher demand to overcome the mismatch between the visual inputs and the agent’s prior beliefs and contextual information about the situation (i.e., “this person looks like in pain, but I know he/she does not actually feel it”). We speculate that a dynamic interaction between sensory-driven and control processes is underlying the modulatory effect: when individuals realized after an initial sensory-driven response to the facial expression that it was not genuinely expressing pain, control, and appraisal processes led to a reappraisal of the triggered emotional response, and thus a dampening of the unpleasantness. The reduced inhibition in the genuine pain condition could moreover be a mechanism that explains the higher rSMG activation in this condition.

Model comparison showed that the best model to explain the inhibitory effect with the behavioral ratings for both the genuine and pretended pain is the model without interactions between ratings. That is, if any behavioral rating contributed to the modulation of aIns to rSMG, the effect would be more likely coming from single ratings rather than their interactions. Specifically, we found the strength of the inhibitory effect in the genuine pain condition to correlate with ratings of painful feelings in others, but not with the ratings of pain expression in others or unpleasantness in self. For the pretended pain condition, none of the ratings showed a correlation. The latter could in principle be due to a lack of variation in the ratings (which by way of the design were mostly close to zero or one). We deem it more plausible, though, that the correlation findings provide further evidence that the modulation of aIns to rSMG is implicated in encoding others’ emotional states, which serves as a functional foundation for self-other processing when participants engaged in genuine affect sharing. This regulation cannot be totally attributed to domain-general processes, otherwise other ratings should have also explained this variation. It is also interesting to note that the found correlation relates to cognitive evaluations of the other’s pain rather than to own affect, as tracked by the unpleasantness in self-ratings. This would to some extent be in line with DCM findings by Kanske et al., 2016. These authors found that the inhibition of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) by the aIns was linked to interactions between Theory of Mind (ToM) and empathic distress, that is the interaction of ‘cognitive’ vs. ‘affective’ processes engaged in understanding others’ cognitive and affective states. Note that the right TPJ is an overarching area involved in self-other distinction of which rSMG is considered a part or at least closely connected to Decety and Lamm, 2007, for review.

The correlations between the DCM inhibitory effect and empathic traits assessed via questionnaires provide further refinements for the relevance of rSMG in implementing self-other distinction to allow for an appropriate empathic response. When participants shared genuine affect, the inhibitory effect on the aIns to rSMG connection was positively correlated with affective ability and negatively correlated with affective reactivity. Affective ability reflects the capacity to subjectively share emotions with others, while affective reactivity plays a role in the susceptibility to vicarious distress and thus to more automatic responses to another’s emotion (Batchelder et al., 2017). Again, as for the correlations with the three rating scales, we did not find correlations of empathic traits for the pretended pain condition. Taken together, the DCM results and their qualification by the correlation findings suggest that in the genuine pain condition, which requires an accurate sharing of pain, rSMG interacts with aIns to achieve ‘affective-to-affective’ self-other distinction – that is disambiguating affective signals originating in the self from those attributable to the other person. The aIns to rSMG connection in the pretended pain condition may reflect a related, yet slightly distinct mechanism. Here, it seems that ‘cognitive-to-affective’ self-other distinction is at play, which helps resolve conflicting information between the top-down contextual information (i.e., that the demonstrator is not actually in pain) from what seems an unavoidable affective response to the highly salient perceptual cue of the facial expression of pain. Given our behavioral and trait data did not allow us to distinguish more precisely between these different types of self-other distinction, this however remains an interpretation and a hypothesis that will require further investigation. This inhibitory effect might be related to socioemotional disturbances of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), who show impairments in social cognition, including self- and other-related processing (Hoffmann et al., 2016; Lamm et al., 2016, for review). It is thus likely that ASD individuals exhibit distinct inhibition of the aIns-to-rSMG connectivity pattern compared to healthy controls. Further research with ASD individuals is required.

One potential limitation of the study could be the slightly higher ratings of other-oriented pain expressions for genuine pain, which were hypothesized to have no difference, as compared to pretended pain. As we found the enhanced aIns activation in the genuine pain condition mainly tracked personal unpleasantness rather than perceptually domain-general processes, and because the effect size of the pain expression difference was much smaller than for the affect ratings, we consider this difference did not fundamentally influence the interpretation of our findings. An additional limitation was that our study design did not aim to explicitly quantify self-other distinction. Rather, in line with previous research and based on our theoretical framework and rationale, we inferred the engagement of this process from the experimental conditions and the associated behavioral and neural responses. We expect our findings to prompt and inform future research designed to quantify and experimentally disentangle self- and other-related processes more explicitly. Note though that our participants and the targets shown in the videos were balanced with respect to their sex/gender. Yet sex/gender effects (for a review, though, see Christov-Moore, 2014) were outside the scope of the current study, and we thus did not perform any sex/gender-related analyses.

In conclusion, the current study advances our understanding of two main aspects of empathy. First, we provide evidence that empathy-related responses in the aIns can indeed be linked to affective sharing, rather than attributing them to responses triggered only by perceptual saliency. Second, we show how aIns and rSMG are orchestrated to track what another person really feels, thus enabling us to appropriately respond to their actual needs. Beyond these basic research insights, our study provides novel avenues for clinical application, and the investigation of contextual and interpersonal factors in the accurate diagnosis of pain and its expression.

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper. Raw functional imaging and behavioral data are deposited at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4783235. Processed behavioral data and individual DCM parameters are accessible at https://github.com/Yili-Zhao/Genuine_pretended-pain-task.git. Unthresholded statistical maps are available at https://identifiers.org/neurovault.collection:9949.

1. 1. Zhao Y
   2. Zhang L
   3. Rütgen M
   4. Sladky R
   5. Lamm C

   (2021) Zenodo

   The raw data of genuine and pretended pain task.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4783234

1. 1. Ashburner J

   (2007) A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm

   NeuroImage 38:95–113.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bach P
   2. Peelen MV
   3. Tipper SP

   (2010) On the role of object information in action observation: An FMRI study

   Cerebral Cortex 20:2798–2809.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq026

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bagby RM
   2. Taylor GJ
   3. Parker JDA

   (1994) The Twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale--II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity

   Journal of Psychosomatic Research 38:33–40.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90006-X

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bastos AM
   2. Litvak V
   3. Moran R
   4. Bosman CA
   5. Fries P
   6. Friston KJ

   (2015) A DCM study of spectral asymmetries in feedforward and feedback connections between visual areas v1 and v4 in the Monkey

   NeuroImage 108:460–475.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.081

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Book

   1. Batchelder L

   (2015)

   Characterising the Components of Empathy: Implications for Models of Autism

   University of Bath.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Batchelder L
   2. Brosnan M
   3. Ashwin C

   (2017) The Development and Validation of the Empathy Components Questionnaire (ECQ

   PLOS ONE 12:e0169185.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169185

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Batson CD
   2. Fultz J
   3. Schoenrade PA

   (1987) Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences

   Journal of Personality 55:19–39.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. Conference

   1. Brett M
   2. Anton JL
   3. Valabregue R
   4. Poline JB

   (2002)

   Paper presented at the 8th international conference on functional Mapping of the human brain

   Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bukowski H
   2. Tik M
   3. Silani G
   4. Ruff CC
   5. Windischberger C
   6. Lamm C

   (2020) When differences matter: RTMS/FMRI reveals how differences in dispositional empathy translate to distinct neural underpinnings of self-other distinction in empathy

   Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 128:143–161.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chen CC
    2. Henson RN
    3. Stephan KE
    4. Kilner JM
    5. Friston KJ

    (2009) Forward and backward connections in the brain: A DCM study of functional asymmetries

    NeuroImage 45:453–462.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Christov-Moore L

    (2014) Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 46:604–627.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Clark A

    (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36:181–204.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Coll M-P
    2. Viding E
    3. Rütgen M
    4. Silani G
    5. Lamm C
    6. Catmur C
    7. Bird G

    (2017) Are we really measuring empathy? Proposal for a new measurement framework

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 83:132–139.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.009

    • Google Scholar
14. Book

    1. Davis MH

    (1980)

    A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy

    American Psychological Association.

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Decety J
    2. Lamm C

    (2007) The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social interaction: How low-level computational processes contribute to meta-cognition

    The Neuroscientist 13:580–593.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407304654

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. Book

    1. Decety J
    2. Lamm C

    (2011) Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience

    In: Decety J, Ickes W, editors. The Social Neuroscience of Empathy. MIT press. pp. 199–213.

    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0016

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Fallon N
    2. Roberts C
    3. Stancak A

    (2020) Shared and distinct functional networks for empathy and pain processing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of FMRI studies

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 15:709–723.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa090

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Fan Y
    2. Duncan NW
    3. de Greck M
    4. Northoff G

    (2011) Is there a core neural network in empathy? An FMRI based quantitative meta-analysis

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35:903–911.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.009

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Faul F
    2. Erdfelder E
    3. Lang AG
    4. Buchner A

    (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

    Behavior Research Methods 39:175–191.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Forbes PAG
    2. Hamilton AF

    (2020) Brief Report: Autistic Adults Assign Less Weight to Affective Cues When Judging Others’ Ambiguous Emotional States

    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 50:3066–3070.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04410-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Friston K

    (2010) The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 11:127–138.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. Website

    1. Gläscher J
    2. Gitelman D

    (2008) Contrast weights in flexible factorial design with multiple groups of subjects

    Accessed March 18, 2008.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267779738_Contrast_weights_in_flexible_factorial_design_with_multiple_groups_of_subjects.pdf
23. 1. Gola KA

    (2017) A neural network underlying intentional emotional facial expression in neurodegenerative disease

    NeuroImage: Clinical 14:672–678.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.01.016

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gorgolewski K
    2. Burns CD
    3. Madison C
    4. Clark D
    5. Halchenko YO
    6. Waskom ML
    7. Ghosh SS

    (2011) Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python

    Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 5:13.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2011.00013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Gu X
    2. Han S

    (2007) Attention and reality constraints on the neural processes of empathy for pain

    NeuroImage 36:256–267.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hawco C
    2. Kovacevic N
    3. Malhotra AK
    4. Buchanan RW
    5. Viviano JD
    6. Iacoboni M
    7. McIntosh AR
    8. Voineskos AN

    (2017) Neural Activity while Imitating Emotional Faces is Related to Both Lower and Higher-Level Social Cognitive Performance

    Scientific Reports 7:1244.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01316-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hein G
    2. Singer T

    (2008) I feel how you feel but not always: The empathic brain and its modulation

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18:153–158.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hoffmann F
    2. Koehne S
    3. Steinbeis N
    4. Dziobek I
    5. Singer T

    (2016) Preserved Self-other Distinction During Empathy in Autism is Linked to Network Integrity of Right Supramarginal Gyrus

    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46:637–648.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2609-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Holmes E
    2. Zeidman P
    3. Friston KJ
    4. Griffiths TD

    (2020) Difficulties with speech-in-noise perception related to fundamental grouping processes in auditory cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 31:1582–1596.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa311

    • Google Scholar
30. Book

    1. James G
    2. Witten D
    3. Hastie T
    4. Tibshirani R

    (2013) An Introduction to Statistical Learning

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Jauniaux J
    2. Khatibi A
    3. Rainville P
    4. Jackson PL

    (2019) A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on pain empathy: investigating the role of visual information and observers’ perspective

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 14:789–813.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kanske P
    2. Böckler A
    3. Trautwein FM
    4. Parianen Lesemann FH
    5. Singer T

    (2016) Are strong empathizers better mentalizers? Evidence for independence and interaction between the routes of social cognition

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 11:1383–1392.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw052

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Lamm C
    2. Meltzoff AN
    3. Decety J

    (2010) How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22:362–376.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21186

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lamm C
    2. Decety J
    3. Singer T

    (2011) Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain

    NeuroImage 54:2492–2502.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lamm C
    2. Bukowski H
    3. Silani G

    (2016) From shared to distinct self-other representations in empathy: Evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 371:20150083.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lamm C
    2. Rütgen M
    3. Wagner IC

    (2019) Imaging empathy and prosocial emotions

    Neuroscience Letters 693:49–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.06.054

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mars RB
    2. Sallet J
    3. Schüffelgen U
    4. Jbabdi S
    5. Toni I
    6. Rushworth MFS

    (2012) Connectivity-based subdivisions of the human right “temporoparietal junction area”: evidence for different areas participating in different cortical networks

    Cerebral Cortex 22:1894–1903.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr268

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Book

    1. Menard S

    (2002) Applied Logistic Regression Analysis

    2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States of America: Sage.

    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983433

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Miska NJ
    2. Richter LMA
    3. Cary BA
    4. Gjorgjieva J
    5. Turrigiano GG

    (2018) Sensory experience inversely regulates feedforward and feedback excitation-inhibition ratio in rodent visual cortex

    eLife 7:e38846.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38846

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Pokorny JJ
    2. Hatt NV
    3. Colombi C
    4. Vivanti G
    5. Rogers SJ
    6. Rivera SM

    (2015) The action observation system when observing hand actions in autism and typical development

    Autism Research 8:284–296.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1445

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Power JD
    2. Barnes KA
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Schlaggar BL
    5. Petersen SE

    (2012) Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion

    NeuroImage 59:2142–2154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Power JD
    2. Mitra A
    3. Laumann TO
    4. Snyder AZ
    5. Schlaggar BL
    6. Petersen SE

    (2014) Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state FMRI

    NeuroImage 84:320–341.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. Software

    1. Rousselet G

    (2021) Bootcorci, version 2bb2d2b

    Github.

    https://github.com/GRousselet/bootcorci
44. 1. Rütgen M
    2. Seidel EM
    3. Silani G
    4. Riečanský I
    5. Hummer A
    6. Windischberger C
    7. Petrovic P
    8. Lamm C

    (2015) Placebo analgesia and its opioidergic regulation suggest that empathy for pain is grounded in self pain

    PNAS 112:E5638.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511269112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Seth AK

    (2013) Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:565–573.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Silani G
    2. Lamm C
    3. Ruff CC
    4. Singer T

    (2013) Right supramarginal gyrus is crucial to overcome emotional egocentricity bias in social judgments

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:15466–15476.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1488-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Sladky R

    (2011) Slice-timing effects and their correction in functional MRI

    NeuroImage 58:588–594.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.078

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Steinbeis N
    2. Bernhardt BC
    3. Singer T

    (2015) Age-related differences in function and structure of rSMG and reduced functional connectivity with DLPFC explains heightened emotional egocentricity bias in childhood

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 10:302–310.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Stephan KE
    2. Friston KJ

    (2010) Analyzing effective connectivity with functional magnetic resonance imaging

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science 1:446–459.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.58

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. World Medical Association

    (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects

    JAMA 310:2191–2194.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Xiong R-C
    2. Fu X
    3. Wu L-Z
    4. Zhang C-H
    5. Wu H-X
    6. Shi Y
    7. Wu W

    (2019) Brain pathways of pain empathy activated by pained facial expressions: a meta-analysis of fMRI using the activation likelihood estimation method

    Neural Regeneration Research 14:172–178.

    https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.243722

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Zaki J
    2. Wager TD
    3. Singer T
    4. Keysers C
    5. Gazzola V

    (2016) The anatomy of suffering: Understanding the relationship between nociceptive and empathic pain

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20:249–259.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.02.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Zeidman P
    2. Jafarian A
    3. Corbin N
    4. Seghier ML
    5. Razi A
    6. Price CJ
    7. Friston KJ

    (2019a) A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 1: First level analysis with DCM for FMRI

    NeuroImage 200:174–190.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Zeidman P
    2. Jafarian A
    3. Seghier ML
    4. Litvak V
    5. Cagnan H
    6. Price CJ
    7. Friston KJ

    (2019b) A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB

    NeuroImage 200:12–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Zhang M
    2. Chung SH
    3. Fang-Yen C
    4. Craig C
    5. Kerr RA
    6. Suzuki H
    7. Samuel ADT
    8. Mazur E
    9. Schafer WR

    (2008) A self-regulating feed-forward circuit controlling C. elegans egg-laying behavior

    Current Biology 18:1445–1455.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Zhao Y
    2. Rütgen M
    3. Zhang L
    4. Lamm C

    (2021) Pharmacological fMRI provides evidence for opioidergic modulation of discrimination of facial pain expressions

    Psychophysiology 58:e13717.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13717

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Zhou F
    2. Li J
    3. Zhao W
    4. Xu L
    5. Zheng X
    6. Fu M
    7. Yao S
    8. Kendrick KM
    9. Wager TD
    10. Becker B

    (2020) Empathic pain evoked by sensory and emotional-communicative cues share common and process-specific neural representations

    eLife 9:e56929.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56929

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Yili Zhao

   Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4535-6636

2. Lei Zhang

   Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9586-595X

3. Markus Rütgen

   1. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
   2. Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4947-7734

4. Ronald Sladky

   Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5986-1572

5. Claus Lamm

   1. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
   2. Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   claus.lamm@univie.ac.at

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5422-0653

• 2,235

  views

• 256

  downloads

• 19

  citations

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