ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2026
Differential responses to group and individual emotional voices: a behavioral and ERP study.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human beings live in social groups, and processing group emotions is crucial for interacting with and understanding others' behaviors and feelings. This study investigated the cognitive and neural mechanisms of processing group versus individual emotional voices within the auditory modality. We examined ERP responses of 34 participants to group and individual voices across three emotional valences (negative, neutral, positive). Behavioral results revealed a significant interaction: group voices yielded shorter reaction times for neutral and positive emotions but longer for negative ones, alongside more positive overall emotional reactions. Electrophysiologically, group voices elicited more positive N1 and larger P2 amplitudes, with shorter latencies. More specifically, for negative and positive voices, group voices elicited larger P2 amplitudes than individual voices, while no significant difference between group and individual voices emerged for neutral voices. Furthermore, P2 amplitudes elicited by group voices were negatively correlated with participants' trait cognitive empathy. These results suggest that group voices elicit stronger early neural responses driven by an interplay of acoustic and social salience. Importantly, rather than demonstrating a direct empathy-specific neural mechanism, the observed negative correlation suggests that trait empathy may play a role in modulating the early sensory detection and attentional processing of complex, emotional group empathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.