Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800886›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Individual differences in vicarious pain as a shift in the self-other boundary.

Mengze Li, Chris Racey, Samira Bouyagoub, Hugo D Critchley, Jamie Ward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Mengze LiSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Chris RaceySchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Samira BouyagoubBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Hugo D CritchleyBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Jamie WardSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is inconsistent evidence concerning whether physical pain and vicarious pain share neural resources. This may reflect different methodological approaches (e.g., univariate vs. multivariate fMRI analyses) and/or participant characteristics. Here we contrast people who report experiencing pain when seeing others in pain (vicarious pain responders) with non-responders (who do not report pain). Cues indicated the level and location of an electrical shock delivered to the participant (self) or experimenter (other), with behavioural ratings and neural responses (fMRI) obtained. Non-responders tend to rate their own pain as worse than others given identical cues, whereas responders show greater similarity between self and other ratings. Univariate neuroimaging analyses showed activity in regions of the pain matrix such as insula, mid-cingulate, and somatosensory cortices contrasting physical versus vicarious pain, and when regressing the level of self-pain. But these analyses did not differ by group. Multivariate analyses, by contrast, revealed several group differences. The ability to classify self versus other was less accurate in the vicarious pain responders (in the same regions implicated in the univariate analyses of physical pain). In conclusion, the degree of shared neural responses to physical and vicarious pain is increased in vicarious pain responders consistent with the notion of differences in the self-other boundary.

Indexed as

emotion contagionempathyfMRImulti-voxel pattern analysisvicarious pain

Identifiers

PMID40800886
PMCPMC12319950

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.