4.4 Review

Is the Putative Mirror Neuron System Associated with Empathy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 14-57

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-020-09452-6

关键词

Mirror neurons; Simulation; Empathy; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theoretical perspectives suggest that the mirror neuron system is an important neurobiological factor in empathy, but empirical support is mixed. A review of existing studies found moderate correlations between emotional and cognitive empathy with MNS activity, although results varied across techniques used. Few studies investigated motor empathy, with no significant relationships found.
Theoretical perspectives suggest that the mirror neuron system (MNS) is an important neurobiological contributor to empathy, yet empirical support is mixed. Here, we adopt a summary model for empathy, consisting of motor, emotional, and cognitive components of empathy. This review provides an overview of existing empirical studies investigating the relationship between putative MNS activity and empathy in healthy populations. 52 studies were identified that investigated the association between the MNS and at least one domain of empathy, representing data from 1044 participants. Our results suggest that emotional and cognitive empathy are moderately correlated with MNS activity, however, these domains were mixed and varied across techniques used to acquire MNS activity (TMS, EEG, and fMRI). Few studies investigated motor empathy, and of those, no significant relationships were revealed. Overall, results provide preliminary evidence for a relationship between MNS activity and empathy. However, our findings highlight methodological variability in study design as an important factor in understanding this relationship. We discuss limitations regarding these methodological variations and important implications for clinical and community translations, as well as suggestions for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据