Cited by 903Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmpathy and Medical Education

Is there a core neural network in empathy? an fMRI based quantitative meta-analysis

Fan, Yan, Duncan, Niall W., de Greck, Moritz, Northoff, Georg·2011·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Whilst recent neuroimaging studies have identified a series of different brain regions as being involved in empathy, it remains unclear concerning the activation consistence of these brain regions and their specific functional roles. Using MKDA, a whole-brain based quantitative meta-analysis of recent fMRI studies of empathy was performed. This analysis identified the dACC-aMCC-SMA and bilateral anterior insula as being consistently activated in empathy. Hypothesizing that what are here termed affective-perceptual and cognitive-evaluative forms of empathy might be characterized by different activity patterns, the neural activations in these forms of empathy were compared. The dorsal aMCC was demonstrated to be recruited more frequently in the cognitive-evaluative form of empathy, whilst the right anterior insula was found to be involved in the affective-perceptual form of empathy only. The left anterior insula was active in both forms of empathy. It was concluded that the dACC-aMCC-SMA and bilateral insula can be considered as forming a core network in empathy, and that cognitive-evaluative and affective-perceptual empathy can be distinguished at the level of regional activation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.009

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature currently lacks a specific meta-analytic investigation and comprehensive systematic review on the relationship between empathy and the MNS.

    “the literature currently lacks a specific meta-analytic investigation and comprehensive systematic review on the relationship between empathy and the MNS.”

    From Is the Putative Mirror Neuron System Associated with Empathy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as Fan, Duncan, de Greck, & Northoff, 2011

  • Whole-brain analyses of the contrast of painful vs. neutral expressions revealed activations in both the empathy network (anterior cingulate and bilateral AI/IFG) and the theory-of-mind network (mPFC, left TPJ, right TP).

    “Similar to previous findings (Fan et al., 2011; Lamm et al., 2011; Shamay-Tsoory, 2011), whole-brain analyses of the contrast of painful vs. neutral expressions revealed activations in both the empathy network, including the anterior cingulate and bilateral AI/inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and the theory-of-mind network, including the mPFC, left TPJ, and right temporal pole (TP) (all activations”

    From A neurobiological association of revenge propensity during intergroup conflict (2020) · cites this paper as Fan et al., 2011

  • Interoception-related meta-representation of emotion has been suggested to underlie the concomitant involvement of the aMCC/SMA and AI/IFG in neuroimaging studies on empathy as reflecting affective sharing.

    “Interoception-related meta-representation of emotion has thus been suggested to underlie the concomitant involvement of the aMCC/SMA and AI/IFG in neuroimaging studies on empathy as reflecting affective sharing (Singer and Lamm 2009; Fan et al. 2011).”
  • Empathy for pain crucially involves anterior insula and anterior midcingulate cortex.

    “Two recent cross-sectional meta-analyses suggest that empathy for pain crucially involves anterior insula (AI) and anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC) (Fan et al., 2011;Lamm et al., 2011).”
  • These results align with and extend previous cross-sectional meta-analytic findings on a crucial role of insula and aMCC in empathy for pain.

    “These results align with and extend previous crosssectional meta-analytic findings on a crucial role of insula and aMCC in empathy for pain (Fan et al., 2011;Lamm et al., 2011)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fan, Y., Duncan, N. W., de Greck, M., & Northoff, G.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Northoff, Georg
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
903-911
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088335634
Cited by
902
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 28
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Salus Foundation
  • German Research Foundation
  • SFB/DFG
  • Hope of Depression Research Foundation (HDRF)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
empathy, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, supplementary motor area, anterior insula
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Empathy, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Meta-Analysis as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review