To what extent do we share the pain of others? Insight from the neural bases of pain empathy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the representationalist framework generally adopted in cognitive neuroscience, pain is conceived as a subjective experience triggered by the activation of a mental representation of actual or potential tissue damage (nociception). This representation may involve somatic sensory features, as well as affective-motivational reactions associated with the promotion of protective or recuperative visceromotor and behavioral responses. Mental representation of nociception may provide the primary referent from which a rich associative network can be established to evoke the notion of pain in the absence of a nociceptive stimulus. Here, we adopt the notion of a mental representation of pain as a means to relate the experience of pain in oneself to the perception of pain in others. We review the functional neuroimaging studies supporting the hypothesis that the perception of pain in others relies at least partly on the activation of a mental representation of pain in the Self, and thus on common neural systems. However, we also demonstrate that there are systematic differences in activation sites within painrelated areas that must be considered for a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying pain empathy
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it