Cited by 158Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFace Recognition and Perception

Inability to empathize: brain lesions that disrupt sharing and understanding another’s emotions.

Open access
Hillis, Argye E.·2014·Brain

Abstract

Emotional empathy--the ability to recognize, share in, and make inferences about another person's emotional state--is critical for all social interactions. The neural mechanisms underlying emotional empathy have been widely studied with functional imaging of healthy participants. However, functional imaging studies reveal correlations between areas of activation and performance of a task, so that they can only reveal areas engaged in a task, rather than areas of the brain that are critical for the task. Lesion studies complement functional imaging, to identify areas necessary for a task. Impairments in emotional empathy have been mostly studied in neurological diseases with fairly diffuse injury, such as traumatic brain injury, autism and dementia. The classic 'focal lesion' is stroke. There have been scattered studies of patients with impaired empathy after stroke and other focal injury, but these studies have included small numbers of patients. This review will bring together data from these studies, to complement evidence from functional imaging. Here I review how focal lesions affect emotional empathy. I will show how lesion studies contribute to the understanding of the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying emotional empathy, and how they contribute to the management of patients with impaired emotional empathy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awt317

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cognitive empathy (CE) is a prerequisite for emotional empathy (EE).

    “integrative approaches propose that the experience of empathy evolves as a dynamic interplay between them requiring an explicit representation of the specific affective state of the other person, thereby making CE a prerequisite for EE (Decety and Jackson, 2004; Hillis, 2014).”
  • For direct and indirect emotional empathy measures, only trials with correct cognitive empathy recognition were analyzed.

    “Based on previous conceptualizations of empathy, proposing that CE is a prerequisite for EE (Decety and Jackson, 2004; Hillis, 2014), for EED and EEI measures only trials for which subjects successfully recognized the emotions displayed by the protagonist were analyzed [for a similar approach see Luo et al. (2015a)].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Eslinger PJ, Satish U, Grattan LM. Alterations in cognitively-and affec- tively-based empathy after cerebral damage. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1996; 2: 15.
  2. Grattan LM, Eslinger PJ. Influence of cerebral lesion site upon the onset and progression of interpersonal deficits following brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1990; 12: 33.
  3. Gregory CA, Orrell M, Sahakian B, Hodges JR. Can frontotemporal de- mentia and Alzheimer's disease be differentiated using a brief battery of tests? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997; 12: 375-83.
  4. Lee HS, Brennan PF, Daly BJ. Relationship of empathy to appraisal, de- pression, life satisfaction, and physical health in informal caregivers of older adults. Res Nurs Health 2001; 24: 44-56.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hillis, A. E.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Hillis, Argye E.
Venue
Brain
Published
2013-11-30
Volume
137
Issue
4
Pages
981-997
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2148900213
Cited by
158
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 7
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS47691, R01NS047691)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
affective empathy, brain lesions, stroke, focal brain injury, social cognition, emotional understanding, neural mechanisms of empathy
MeSH terms
Brain, Empathy, Humans, Stroke

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