Cited by 254Action Observation and SynchronizationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesPain Management and Treatment

Stimulus-driven modulation of motor-evoked potentials during observation of others' pain

Avenanti, Alessio, Paluello, Ilaria Minio, Bufalari, Ilaria, Aglioti, Salvatore M.·2006·NeuroImage

Abstract

Empathy may allow interindividual sharing not only of emotions (e.g., joy, sadness, disgust) but also of sensations (e.g., touch, itching, pain). Although empathy for pain may rely upon both sensory and affective components of the pain experience, neuroimaging studies indicate that only the affective component of the pain matrix is involved in empathy for pain. By using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we highlighted the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain by showing a clear motor inhibition during the mere observation of needles penetrating body parts of a human model. Here, we explored stimulus-specific and instruction-specific influences on this inhibition by manipulating task instructions (request to adopt first- or third-person perspective vs. passive observation) and painfulness of the experimental stimuli (presentation of videos of needles deeply penetrating or simply pinpricking a hand). We found a significant reduction in amplitudes of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) specific to the muscle the subjects observed being penetrated that correlated with the intensity of the pain attributed to the model. Crucially, this motor inhibition was present during observation of penetrating but not of pinpricking needles. Moreover, no MEPs modulation contingent upon different task instructions was found. Results suggest that the motor inhibition elicited by the observation of "flesh and bone" pain stimuli is more stimulus-driven than instruction-driven.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.010

Cites

49 of 49 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avenanti, A., Paluello, I. M., Bufalari, I., & Aglioti, S. M.
Affiliations
Fondazione Santa Lucia (IT)
Corresponding author
Aglioti, Salvatore M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
316-324
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977104693
Cited by
254
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
FWCI
22.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
empathy for pain, motor evoked potentials, motor inhibition, needle penetration, pain intensity, first-person perspective, third-person perspective, pain matrix
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Empathy, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Needles, Pain, Pain Measurement, Video Recording, Wounds, Penetrating, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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