MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888025021 · doi:10.1093/scan/nsy072

Meta-analysis of ERP investigations of pain empathy underlines methodological issues in ERP research

2018· review· en· W2888025021 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michel‐Pierre Coll

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmpathyPsychologyFlexibility (engineering)Cognitive psychologyReliability (semiconductor)CognitionMeta-analysisSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empathy has received considerable attention from the field of cognitive and social neuroscience. A significant portion of these studies used the event-related potential (ERP) technique to study the mechanisms of empathy for pain in others in different conditions and clinical populations. These show that specific ERP components measured during the observation of pain in others are modulated by several factors and altered in clinical populations. However, issues present in this literature such as analytical flexibility and lack of type 1 error control raise doubts regarding the validity and reliability of these conclusions. The current study compiled the results and methodological characteristics of 40 studies using ERP to study empathy of pain in others. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that the centro-parietal P3 and late positive potential component are sensitive to the observation of pain in others, while the early N1 and N2 components are not reliably associated with vicarious pain observation. The review of the methodological characteristics shows that the presence of selective reporting, analytical flexibility and lack of type 1 error control compromise the interpretation of these results. The implication of these results for the study of empathy and potential solutions to improve future investigations are discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.903
GPT teacher head0.632
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Cognitive and Affective NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207