ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Individual differences in the empathic experience of pain: An EEG and machine learning approach.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Empathy-related individual differences in brain responses to robot and human pain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observing pain in others often elicits vicarious responses commonly considered as indices of empathy. However, the extent to which these responses reflect genuine empathic engagement remains subject of debate, with little research on how they may vary among individuals exhibiting low empathy traits like callousness or emotional detachment. To investigate this, we recorded EEG activity from 37 healthy participants to determine if neural responses to second-hand pain correlate with self-reported empathy and callousunemotional traits, while further testing the predictive utility of these signatures using single-trial machine learning classification. Although painful stimuli elicited distinct responses at the group level - specifically larger late positive potentials (LPP; 500-900 ms) and decreased theta and alpha power (650-1300 ms) over centroparietal brain regions -, machine learning classification of pain versus no-pain trials did not exceed chance accuracy, suggesting weak or heterogeneous neural differentiation at the single-trial level. Furthermore, pain-related EEG activity did not correlate with subjective pain ratings or empathy. Instead, the data revealed that callous and uncaring traits predicted attenuated LPP amplitudes, and unemotional traits were associated with stronger theta desynchronisation. Together, these findings suggest that neural markers of vicarious pain do not necessarily index empathic engagement but rather seem to reflect individual differences in emotional sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.