Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29735015›Full record

ArticleeLife2018

The causal role of the somatosensory cortex in prosocial behaviour.

Selene Gallo, Riccardo Paracampo, Laura Müller-Pinzler, Mario Carlo Severo, Laila Blömer, Carolina Fernandes-Henriques, Anna Henschel, Balint Kalista Lammes, Tatjana Maskaljunas, Judith Suttrup and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Selene GalloNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4152-8808
Riccardo ParacampoNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9399-1306
Laura Müller-PinzlerNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mario Carlo SeveroNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7403-819X
Laila Blömer *Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Carolina Fernandes-Henriques *Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4019-2049
Anna Henschel *Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-1587
Balint Kalista Lammes *Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tatjana Maskaljunas *Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Judith SuttrupNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4034-1534
Alessio AvenantiDepartment of Psychology, Center for Studies and Research in Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-9996
Christian KeysersNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2845-5467
Valeria GazzolaNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0324-0619

Funding

European Research Council ERC-StG-312511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Witnessing another person's suffering elicits vicarious brain activity in areas that are active when we ourselves are in pain. Whether this activity influences prosocial behavior remains the subject of debate. Here participants witnessed a confederate express pain through a reaction of the swatted hand or through 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. Electroencephalography shows that activity of the somatosensory cortex I (SI) hand region explains variance in donation. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) shows that altering this activity interferes with the pain-donation coupling only when pain is expressed by the hand. High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) shows that altering SI activity also interferes with pain perception. These experiments show that vicarious somatosensory activations contribute to prosocial decision-making and suggest that they do so by helping to transform observed reactions of affected body-parts into accurate perceptions of pain that are necessary for decision-making.

Indexed as

PainSocial BehaviorAdolescentAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleSomatosensory CortexTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung AdultEEGempathy for painhelpinghumanneuroscienceSITMS

Identifiers

PMID29735015
PMCPMC5973831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.