Motor preparation during pain observation does not influence event-related Mu and Beta desynchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous EEG research has shown that observing others in pain increases sensorimotor activity, as indexed by Mu (7-12 Hz) and Beta (13-30 Hz) desynchronization. Such activity is often interpreted as reflecting empathic processing through shared neural representations between the observer and target. In everyday life, observing another in pain can trigger a range of potential action tendencies (e.g., withdrawing, helping, or protecting oneself), but EEG studies typically restrict movement to avoid artifacts. This immobility may produce an artificial scenario that limits our understanding of how motor readiness and empathic processing interact. The present study examined whether engaging the motor system (via a simple key press) modulates these neural responses. Participants observed videos and pictures of a hand being stabbed by a needle or touched by a Q-tip. In half of the blocks, they prepared and executed a speeded key press to a Go signal; in the other half, they remained still. Results revealed Mu and Beta desynchronization during pain observation regardless of movement condition, replicating prior findings. These effects were unrelated to reaction times or empathy traits, suggesting that sensorimotor resonance during pain observation reflects a stable response rather than one contingent on task-specific motor preparation.
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
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".