Empathy. The self other distinction.

Role of the temporo-parietal junction in emotional empathy

Claudio F. Bivacquaa
a

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universit di Palermo, Italy

Abstract
The neuroscience makes an important distinction between emotional empathy and cognitive
empathy (Shamay-Tsoory,2011). Emotional empathy refers at an immediate emotional sharing,
while cognitive empathy refers to a cognitive system that involve understanding of the others
perspective.
Saxe and colleagues (2005) show the role of right temporo-parietal junction (rTPJ) in the
perspective taking when our point of view is different from other, establishing an incongruence
about the different states of mind.
Other studies demonstrate that TPJ allows to elaborate and to integrate sensorimotor and cognitive
information from self and other.
This study investigates the role of rTPJ in emotional empathy, through its inhibition by a train of
Trancranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), demonstrating a major skill to discriminate an emotional
expression of other when this is incongruous with own emotional state.
This brain area would function to establishing a border between self and other allowing an
integrating emotional elaboration about the different emotions.
These results show the importance of TPJ not only in a cognitive perspective taking task but also in
an emotional task.

Keywords
Empathy, emotional contagion, emotion recognition, temporo-parietal junction

Introduction
Empathy is the main social function that allows us to receive important information about other
people in terms of mental state, emotion, sensation and thought.
Neuroimaging, lesion and behavioural studies support a model of two separate system for empathy:
an emotional system and a cognitive system. The capacity of sharing and recognition an others
emotion has been described as emotional empathy (Shamay-Tsoory,2011). The term cognitive
empathy refers empathy as a cognitive role-taking ability, or the capacity to engage in the cognitive
process of adopting anothers psychological point of view (Frith and Singer 2008).
This system allows to make inferences about others affective and cognitive mental states (ShamayTsoory and other 2009).
These two system are philogenetically different. It was reported emotional contagion in rodents
(Langford et al.,2006), while chimpanzees, possess rudimentary traits of cognitive aspect of
empathy such as theory of mind (Call and Tomasello 2008).
The distinction between the two system may also related to different neurochemichal systems. In a
recent study, intranasal administration of the neuropeptide oxytocin increase emotional, but not
cognitive, empathy (Hurlemann and others 2010). On the other hand, it has been recently suggested
that dopaminergic functioning is associated with cognitive aspects of empathy in preschool students
(Lachner and other 2010).
An important study with patients confirm the hypothesis of two separate system for empathy
through a double dissociation. Patients with Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damaged
show consistent and selective deficit in cognitive empathy and Theory of Mind (ToM), while
presenting with intact emotion recognition and emotional empathy. Patients with inferior frontal

gyrus (IFG) lesions, on the other hand, displayed extremely impaired emotional empathy and
emotion recognition (Shamay-Tsoory,2009).
This two brain area are respectively involve in both system but not only these.
Neuron mirror system and simulation
Recent studies about mirror neuron, localized in Inferior frontal gyrus (IFG; Brodmanns Area
[BA] 45/44/6 ) and in inferior parietal lobe (IPL; BA 39,40) mainly in right hemisphere, have given
evidences about immediate sharing of experience between two or more individuals, through an
innate function which allows to simulate on own neural circuit the observed action and to
understand it without complex cognitive process (Rizzolatti 1996, Gallese et al., 1998, Rizzolatti
and Craighero, 2004).
In particular, the mirror neuron system (MNS) encodes the aim of the action and for this reason
they are activated when the observed action is contained in own behavioural repertory (Rizzolatti
and Sinigaglia, 2006; Keysers and Gazzola, 2006).
So, an emotion expresses from a face, from body posture or from a movement dynamic, could be
considers a communicative action about emotional state [Preston and deWall,2002].
This emotional action is encodes through the mirror neurons and the simulated motor information
is sent at limb system (specialized in emotional response) through insula that makes feel the same
emotion observed (Iacoboni,2008).
This process would be the neural base of the simulation theory (Gallese, 2007). The perception of a
behaviour in another automatically activates ones own representation for the behavior and output
from this shared representation automatically proceeds to motor areas of the brain where responses
are prepared and executed (Preston and de Waals, 2002).
This process is reasonable related with emotional contagion because understanding of anothers
emotion makes feel the same emotion. In fact the overt facial mimicry (as measured by an
electromyography or through observation) is related to emotional contagion and emotion
understanding (Niedenthal,2007).
In human, neuron mirror are situated manly in the IFG, in fact there are many studies which show
the correlation between emotional contagion and role of IFG.
Empathy and self-other discrimination
A mature empathic experience needs to a higher level of consciousness and of a good mentalizing
that allows to discriminate self and other experience. In contagion experience the subject hasnt the
consciousness that his emotional state comes from other subject. (Bonino, 1998).
This distinction allow to act an altruistic behaviour directs to other emotional regulation because the
subject understands the origin of emotion.
This function is related with perspective taking. Mentalizing other emotion require recognizing of
difference about self and other (Fonagy et al.,1997).
Self recognition and self/other differentiation is a fundamental aspect of social interaction and
emotional and cognitive experience ( Brass et al. 2009).
The neural process involved in self/other discrimination at the sensorimotor level is involved, in
part, in cognitive level (Giardina et al., 2011) and in emotional level , for example in the emotional
incongruence between two subject.
Many studies investigating the neural correlates of self-recognition and self/other differentiation
focused on temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). This area extends from superior temporal sulcus to the
inferior parietal lobe. Previous studies show the role of this brain area in different cognitive
function.

Corbetta and Shulmann (2002) reported the activation of TPJ on a exogenous attention task when
the stimulus is not awaited on a field of view. This shows the role of this brain area in a
incongruence state between self and the environment.
Another important function of TPJ is the self body location. TPJ is directly connected with
Extrastriate body area (EBA) which responds selectively to human body part.
Data from neurological patients suffering from out-of-body experiences (OBEs) provide such
evidence, showing that focal brain damage may lead to pathological changes of the first-person
perspective and self-location (Blanke et al., 2002; De Ridder et al., 2007), due to interference with
the integration of multisensory bodily information at the TPJ. It was argued that such changes in
first-person perspective and self location are due to a double disintegration of bodily signals,
a disintegration between somatosensory (proprioceptive and tactile) and visual signals combined
with an additional visuo-vestibular disintegration (Blanke et al., 2004; Lopez et al.,2008).
The right TPJ is more active during the attribution of actions to another agent than during firstperson motor imagination and imitation (Costa et al., 2008; Decety et al., 2002; Ruby et
al.,2004).When another subject imitates our actions by translating his/her bodily perspective to ours,
right TPJ activation is reported; on the other hand, if we translate our bodily perspective to that of
other people this activation is not shown (Ruby et al.,2004).
However, in such an early processing stage, attribution of the observed behaviour to the self might
only occur if the observed behaviour is congruent to the planned behaviour, whereas observing an
incongruent movement leads to an attribution of the observed behaviour to another person (Brass,
2009).
TPJ is involved also on higher level cognitive function as ToM and perspective taking.( Saxe,
Wexler; 2005).
This functions allow us to create a theory about other state of mind taking other perspective.
Theory of mind may be defined as the ability to put oneself into someone elses shoes, imagine their
thoughts and feelings (Baron-Cohen 2009). ToM, also known as mentalization , enables one to
extract and understand the goals of others by drawing on the capacity to understand the others
thoughts, intentions, emotions, and beliefs and predict their behavior (Amodio and Frith 2006).
In particular, inhibition of right TPJ through TMS, results a social neglet that refers to lack of
consideration of the real intention of other and to attributions of hostile intentionality to their
behaviour (Giardina, Oliveri; 2011). The attribution of hostile intentionality to the behaviour of
others is a complex process involving visuo-spatial perspective taking, theory of mind, intention
understanding and expression of emotions.
An interesting point of view considers TPJ as a modulator of aggression. A recent study reported
that when adolescence with aggressive conduct disorder viewed situations in which pain was
intentionally inflicted, those showed no activation of the right TPJ compared with control subject
(Decety, 2008)
This different finding demonstrates that TPJ is implicated in different levels of experience,
sensorimotor, cognitive and affective.
The aim of the present study is that application of rTMS on the right TPJ, should result in a
interference of emotional recognition in another face in a situation of emotional incongruence
between self and other.
In particular we assume that inhibition of right TPJ leads a quickly emotional recognition in another
face when this is incongruent with own emotion than control subjects.
We hypothesize that in baseline session (before rTMS) there is a RT significant different between
congruent and incongruent stimuli, while after rTMS this difference will be cancelled.
In a experimental condition, information about other expression would be elaborated as if they were
own because inhibition of TPJ does not allow elaboration of both point of view.
Subjects with mirror-touch synesthesia show higher level of emotional empathy than control
subjects (Banissy and Ward, 2007). In particular it was demonstrate that subject with mirror-touch

synesthesia have reduced matter grey within the right TPJ ( Holle et al., 2013) suggesting that this
brain area is important to put a sensorimotor and emotional boundary between self and other.

Material and method

Subject
Nine right-handed subject volunteers (five male, four female, mean 23.89 ds 1.36) participated in
the experiment. All participants had not history of neurological or psychiatric disorder.
The subjects participated in a experimental procedure in two different sessions (baseline and after
the application of TMS inhibiting the right TPJ.
TMS protocol
Repetitive TMS was applied with procedure of Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS) in continuous mode.
We used a MagStim Rapid2 magnetic stimulator connected to a 70 mm figure-of eight coil.
In detail we delivered triple pulses at a 50Hz that repeat at 5 Hz frequency for a total of 600 pulses.
The coil was situated on right TPJ with the EEG coordinates 10-20 (P4 site).
Stimuli and task
We have selected ten images that induced fearful (ferocious animals, arms, knife and blood etc.)
and ten images that induced happiness (nature, family, children). Moreover we have take two
picture of an unknown face that expressed fearful and happiness. The picture was done with a 1,2megapixel color digital camera (Canon EOS 500D).
Each subject looked the presentation of a image, randomly positive or negative for 2000 ms. This
induce in him an emotional state. After this were presented one of two face (happiness or fearful)
for 500ms. When the face was presented the participants had to recognition the emotion expressed
by face pressing one of two buttons with a finger and we measured the reaction time (RT) of the
answer. After 1000ms the procedure was repeated for a total of 30 consecutive trials for session
(baseline and post-TMS).
The rTMS session started immediantly after the applications of stimuli to preserve the TMS effect.
To exclude the practice effects the subjects had a session with 10 trials before baseline session.
We measured the reaction time about four different combinations of two different picture (positive
or negative) and two emotional expressions (happiness and fairness) with a 2x2 design
The trials were presented on a 19in. computer screen using PsyScope for Macintosh.

Results
We calculated the changes from the baseline session ( before stimulation) to session after
stimulation. The mean values were analysed with ANOVA for the factor Session (baseline vs. postrTMS), Type of Stimuli (congruent vs. incongruent) and Interaction between session and type of
stimuli.
The significance level was calculated for p value < 0,05.

ANOVA showed a significant effect of Session (F= 19,002; p=0,002). This result showed a
decreasing of RT of emotional expression recognition after the rTMS on the right TPJ confirming a
reduction of border between self to other and a quickly emotional simulation.
ANOVA also evidenced a significant effect in Session-Type of stimuli interaction (F=6,434;
p=0,03); while how we hypothesized ANOVA has not evidenced significant effect in factor Type of
stimuli (F=3,136; p=0,1).
Analysis post hoc through Duncan test has evidenced a significance of p-value 0,01 for RT in
baseline session with congruent stimuli versus baseline session with incongruent stimuli ( 575,22
ms. vs. 608,22 ms), that showed a significance delayed to simulate the emotional expression
incongruent with self emotion. Duncan test also showed a significance of p-value 0,002 for RT
with incongruent stimuli in the different session (608,22 ms. baseline vs. 535,66 ms. post-rTMS)
This last result was the confirm of our hypothesis, in fact after rTMS the RT difference between
congruent and incongruous stimuli was abaited (540,33 sec. congruent vs. 535,66 sec. incongruous).

Discussion
The present study examined the role of right temporo-parietal junction (rTPJ) in emotional
processing when the subject elaborate self-other emotional information.
The main result of the present study is that rTMS inhibition of the right TPJ is associated with a
quick other emotional recognition when this is different from self emotion.
In according with simulation theory (Gallese, 2003) to understand the emotion expressed by a face,
we simulate, through mirror neurons, the muscular configuration of expression to recognize
directly, without complex cognitive function, what other feels.
The result of baseline session confirm this theory, demonstrating how the RTs employed to identify
the emotional expression congruent with own emotional state are less than an incongruous
condition (p= 0,01).
We interpreted the results supporting the role of right TPJ in establish a distance between the
different emotional state of two or more people allowing a simultaneous processing of them.
Inhibition of right TPJ in experimental subjects, reduced significantly (p= 0,002) RTs to recognize
of emotional expression in a condition when their emotional state was different from that expressed
by the face.
The TMS interferes with this function and the subject processes the emotional state of other as if it
was own, not drawing the original self emotion. Though the results must be interpreted with
caution to be extended to the complex and dynamic phenomena, we can brought back this
incomplete processing of self and other to emotional contagion when other emotions pass to self
without his consciousness.
The main difference between empathy and emotional contagion is the complexity of information
processing. In empathy experience the subject can feel other emotion but he can separate the self
and other representation, establish a border with other that allow him to distinguish own and other
experience (Bonino,1998), while in emotional contagion this is not the case.
Emotional contagion, through the motor imitation and the absence of self-other distinction,
exemplifies the emotional sharing where cognitive mediation is almost nothing. It is the tendency to
imitate and synchronize in automatic and involuntary way with facial, vocal and postural expression
of other and so to converge with him emotional state (Strayer 1987a, 1988, 1993).
Mirror neurons have the role to connecting the people, the right TPJ has the role to distinguish the
emotional experience of the people. In other hand, this brain area makes slower the emotional

sharing but similarly makes more complex the emotional information allowing an integrated
processing about self and other.
Different studies investigated about his role in cognitive task. A recent study demonstrated how the
inhibition of right TPJ lowers the mentalizing function and the experimental subjects interpreted the
other intentions more hostile than control subject (Giardina et al.,2011).
Right TPJ is also considered as a modulator of aggression ( Decety et al. 2008). We can support that
the lack of knowledge of other perspective could predispose us in a defensive state interpreting
other intentions as hostiles. Instead understand the other state of mind (if that is not hostile) could
reassure us and allow us to modulate our aggression toward an unknown subject.
Other previous studies show his important role in Theory of mind (ToM) tasks demonstrating how
the subjects with right TPJ inhibited had more difficults in other perspective task than control
subjects (Saxe et al. 2005).
These results can improve and makes more complex the empathy models, giving support at
clinical knowledge. In fact they can improve the understanding of symptoms in that patients where
TPJ is damaged. Furthermore psychiatric condition as schizophrenia or borderline disorder could be
explained how a low-activation of this brain area. The multilevel knowing of TPJ could give major
information to design rehabilitation programs to improve social function that result impaired.

References
1. Amodio DM, Frith CD.. Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition.
Nat Rev Neurosci (2006)7:26877.
2. Baron-Cohen S.. Autism: the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory. Ann N Y Acad Sci
(2009)
1156:6880.
3. O. Blanke, S. Ortigue, T. Landis, M. Seeck, Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions,
Nature 419 (2002) 269270.
4. O. Blanke, C. Mohr, C.M. Michel, A. Pascual-Leone, P. Brugger, M. Seeck, T. Landis, G.
Thut, Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at
the temporoparietal junction, Journal of Neuroscience 25 (2005) 550557.
5. Bonino S., Lo Coco A., Tati F. (1998) Empatia, Giunti.
6. M. Brass, P. Ruby, S. Spengler, Inhibition of imitative behaviour and social
cognition,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364
(1528) (2009) 23592367.
7. Call J, Tomasello M.. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends
Cogn Sci (2008)12:18792.
8. Corbetta, M. and Shulman, G.L. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in
brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2002): 3, 215-229
9. Costa, S. Torriero, M. Oliveri, C. Caltagirone, Prefrontal and temporo-parietal involvement
in taking others perspective: TMS evidence, Behavioural Neurology 19 (2008) 7174

10. J. Decety, T. Chaminade, J. Grzes, A.N. Meltzoff, A PET exploration of the neural
mechanisms involved in reciprocal imitation, NeuroImage 15 (2002) 265272.
11. J. Decety, K.J. Michalska, Y. Akitsuki, B.B. Lahey, Atypical empathic responses in
adolescents with aggressive conduct disorder: a functional MRI investigation, Biological
Psychology 80 (2008) 203211.
12. D. De Ridder, K. Van Laere, P. Dupont, T. Menovsky, P. Van de Heyning Visualizing out-ofbody experience in the brain N. Engl. J. Med., 357 (2007), pp. 18291833
13. Fonagy, P., & Target, M. Attachment and reflective function: Their role in selforganization.
Development and Psychopathology, (1997). 9, 679-700.
14. Frith CD, Singer T.. The role of social cognition in decision making. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci (2008) 363:387586.
15. Gallese V. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, (1998) 2(12), 493-501.
16. Gallese, V. The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common
mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. Biological Sciences,
(2003) 358, 517-528.
17. Gallese V. Before and below theory of mind: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates
of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B,
Biological Sciences, 3(2007) 62(1480), 659-669.
18. A Giardina, C Caltagirone, M Oliveri Temporo-parietal junction is involved in attribution of
hostile intentionality in social interactions: An rTMS study. Neuroscience LettersVolume
495 (2011)., Issue 2, 16 May 2011, Pages 150154

19. H Holle, MJ Banissy, J Ward. Functional and structural brain differences associated with
mirror-touch synaesthesia. NeuroImage 83 (2013) 10411050
20. Hurlemann R, Patin A, Onur OA, Cohen MX, Baumgartner T,Keysers C, Gazzola V.
Towards a unifying neural theory of social cognition. (2006).Prog Brain Res 156:379401.
21. Iacoboni M: Mirroring People. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux; (2008)
22. C. Keysers, V. Gazzola. Towards a unifying neural theory of social cognition. Prog. Brain
Res., 156 (2006), pp. 383405
23. Levenstadt JS, and others. 2006. Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice.
Science 312:196770.
24. Lackner CL, Bowman LC, Sabbagh MA. 2010. Dopaminergic functioning and preschoolers
theory of mind. Neuropsychologia. 48:176774.

25. Lopez, C., Halje, P., & Blanke, O. (2008). Body ownership and embodiment: Vestibular and
multisensory mechanisms. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 38(3),
149161.
26. Metzler S, and others. 2010. Oxytocin enhances amygdaladependent, socially reinforced
learning and emotional empathy in humans. J Neurosci 30:49995007.
27. Niedenthal PM.. Embodying emotion. Science 316 (2007) (5827):10025.
28. Preston SD, de Waal FB.. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci
(2002) 25:120.
29. Rizzolatti, G., et al. Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain
Research, (1996) 3, 2, 131-141.
30. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The Mirror Neuron System. Annual Rev Neurosci (2004)
27:169192
31. Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C., So quel che fai, Il cervello che agisce e i neuroni specchio.
(2006). Raffaello Cortina Editore.
32. P. Ruby, J. Decety, How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A
neuroimaging study of perspective taking with social emotions, Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience 16 (2004) 988999.
33. R. Saxe, A. Wexler, Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporoparietal
junction, Neuropsychologia 43 (2005) 13911399.
34. Shamay-Tsoory SG, Aharon-Peretz J, Perry D.. Two systems for empathy: a double
dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus
ventromedial
prefrontal lesions. Brain (2009) 132:61727.
.

Fig.1. Examples of random combinations of positive- negative images and scared-happy face. After the visual stimuli
we recorder the reaction time (RT) used by the subjects to identify the facial emotion. This combinations produce two
conditions: a condition of congruence between emotions subject and facial emotion and a condition of incongruous.

Table 1. Mean reaction time in the different experimental conditions. RT are expressed in ms. SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard Error

Responses
Session-Stimuli
Baseline-congruent
Baseline- Incongruous
TMS- Congruent

RT mean
575.222
608.222
540.333

SD
59.407
75.550
53.921

SE
19.802
25.183
17.973

TMS- Incongruous

535.666

50.005

16,668

Fig 2.Average reaction times (RTs) registered in baseline and post rTMS sessions.
* significance of p-value 0,1 ; ** significance of p-value 0,002

620

600

580

560
Congruente

RTS (MS)

Incongruente

540

520

500

480

Baseline

PostTMS