Yonsei Med J.  2017 Sep;58(5):1061-1065. 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.1061.

Altered Functional Connectivity of the Default Mode Network in Low-Empathy Subjects

• Kim SJ
• Kim SE
• Kim HE
• Han K
• Jeong B
• Kim JJ
• Namkoong K
• Kim JW

• KMID: 2418947
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.1061

Abstract

Empathy is the ability to identify with or make a vicariously experience of another person's feelings or thoughts based on memory and/or self-referential mental simulation. The default mode network in particular is related to self-referential empathy. In order to elucidate the possible neural mechanisms underlying empathy, we investigated the functional connectivity of the default mode network in subjects from a general population. Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired from 19 low-empathy subjects and 18 medium-empathy subjects. An independent component analysis was used to identify the default mode network, and differences in functional connectivity strength were compared between the two groups. The low-empathy group showed lower functional connectivity of the medial prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex (Brodmann areas 9 and 32) within the default mode network, compared to the medium-empathy group. The results of the present study suggest that empathy is related to functional connectivity of the medial prefrontal cortex/anterior cingulate cortex within the default mode network. Functional decreases in connectivity among low-empathy subjects may reflect an impairment of self-referential mental simulation.

Keyword

Empathy; magnetic resonance imaging; functional neuroimaging; medial prefrontal cortex; anterior cingulate cortex

MeSH Terms

Brain Mapping
Demography
*Empathy
Female
Gyrus Cinguli/physiology
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Nerve Net/*physiology
Prefrontal Cortex/physiology
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Coordinates of a voxel exhibiting lower functional connectivity within the default mode network in the low-empathy empathy group, compared to the medium empathy group (x=15, y=39, z=15, t=4.51, k=23 voxels, uncorrected p<0.001).

Reference

1. Deutsch F, Madle RA. Empathy: historic and current conceptualizations, measurement, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Hum Dev. 1975; 18:267–287.

2. Singer T, Lamm C. The social neuroscience of empathy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009; 1156:81–96.

3. Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T. Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage. 2011; 54:2492–2502.

4. Zaki J, Ochsner KN. The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise. Nat Neurosci. 2012; 15:675–680.

5. Spreng RN, Mar RA, Kim AS. The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: a quantitative meta-analysis. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009; 21:489–510.

6. Cole DM, Smith SM, Beckmann CF. Advances and pitfalls in the analysis and interpretation of resting-state FMRI data. Front Syst Neurosci. 2010; 4:8.

7. Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98:676–682.

8. Wagner DD, Kelley WM, Heatherton TF. Individual differences in the spontaneous recruitment of brain regions supporting mental state understanding when viewing natural social scenes. Cereb Cortex. 2011; 21:2788–2796.

9. Buckner RL, Carroll DC. Self-projection and the brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007; 11:49–57.

10. Buckner RL, Andrews-Hanna JR, Schacter DL. The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008; 1124:1–38.

11. Gordon RM. Folk psychology as simulation. Mind Lang. 1986; 1:158–171.

12. Gopnik A, Astington JW. Children's understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Dev. 1988; 59:26–37.

13. Kang I, Kee SW, Kim SE, Jeong BS, Hwang JH, Song JE, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean-version of Interpersonal Reactivity Index. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2009; 48:352–358.

14. Korgaonkar MS, Fornito A, Williams LM, Grieve SM. Abnormal structural networks characterize major depressive disorder: a connectome analysis. Biol Psychiatry. 2014; 76:567–574.

15. Schreiter S, Pijnenborg GH, Aan Het Rot M. Empathy in adults with clinical or subclinical depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2013; 150:1–16.

16. Guo W, Liu F, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Yu L, Liu J, et al. Abnormal default-mode network homogeneity in first-episode, drug-naive major depressive disorder. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e91102.

17. Andreescu C, Sheu LK, Tudorascu D, Walker S, Aizenstein H. The ages of anxiety--differences across the lifespan in the default mode network functional connectivity in generalized anxiety disorder. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014; 29:704–712.

18. Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1967; 6:278–296.

19. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol. 1959; 32:50–55.

20. Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1983; 44:113–126.

21. Calhoun VD, Adali T, Pearlson GD, Pekar JJ. A method for making group inferences from functional MRI data using independent component analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001; 14:140–151.

22. Otti A, Guendel H, Läer L, Wohlschlaeger AM, Lane RD, Decety J, et al. I know the pain you feel-how the human brain's default mode predicts our resonance to another's suffering. Neuroscience. 2010; 169:143–148.

23. Li YO, Adali T, Calhoun VD. Estimating the number of independent components for functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007; 28:1251–1266.

24. Beckmann CF, DeLuca M, Devlin JT, Smith SM. Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent component analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005; 360:1001–1013.

25. Talairach J, Tournoux P. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain: 3-dimensional proportional system : an approach to cerebral imaging. New York: Thieme;1988.

26. Greicius MD, Menon V. Default-mode activity during a passive sensory task: uncoupled from deactivation but impacting activation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004; 16:1484–1492.

27. Vincent JL, Snyder AZ, Fox MD, Shannon BJ, Andrews JR, Raichle ME, et al. Coherent spontaneous activity identifies a hippocampal-parietal memory network. J Neurophysiol. 2006; 96:3517–3531.

28. Gusnard DA, Akbudak E, Shulman GL, Raichle ME. Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential mental activity: relation to a default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98:4259–4264.

29. Mitchell JP, Macrae CN, Banaji MR. Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron. 2006; 50:655–663.

30. Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004; 3:71–100.

31. Assaf M, Jagannathan K, Calhoun VD, Miller L, Stevens MC, Sahl R, et al. Abnormal functional connectivity of default mode sub-networks in autism spectrum disorder patients. Neuroimage. 2010; 53:247–256.

32. Garrity AG, Pearlson GD, McKiernan K, Lloyd D, Kiehl KA, Calhoun VD. Aberrant “default mode” functional connectivity in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2007; 164:450–457.

33. Juárez M, Kiehl KA, Calhoun VD. Intrinsic limbic and paralimbic networks are associated with criminal psychopathy. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013; 34:1921–1930.

34. Liemburg EJ, Swart M, Bruggeman R, Kortekaas R, Knegtering H, Curcić-Blake B, et al. Altered resting state connectivity of the default mode network in alexithymia. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012; 7:660–666.