DSL 200 Journal Rubric
Your journals will be graded using the 200 Level Dialogues of Written Communication Rubric. This
document outlines how each of the sections of the rubric will be graded for the 200 level journals.
Rubric Section
Writing Strategy
Position/Thesis
Introduction
Organization of
Main Points
Content Area
Transitions
Evaluating and
Applying Evidence
Conclusions
Presentation, Style,
and Grammar
APA Style
Journal Grading
• Written in the student’s own words (i.e. no direct quotes)
• Written in third person
• Written at the level a classmate could understand, using layman’s
language whenever possible instead of jargon
• Explanations are clear
• Hypothesis is present as a statement, not as a question
• Hypothesis is specific
• Hypothesis is correct
• The primary (research article) and secondary (news article) sources of
information are introduced and identified
• Inspiration for the study is present
• Hypothesis is present
• Experimental design, results, and conclusions are absent
• The paper follows the order of the scientific method
• Inspiration for study
• Hypothesis
• Experimental design
• Results
• Conclusion
• Evaluation of news article
• Is at least 1 page, but not more than 2
• All areas of the scientific method (except for hypothesis) are correctly
identified
• The scientific study and news article are correctly identified
• Transitions are varied and smooth
• When moving on to explain a new step in the scientific method (e.g.
experiment, conclusion) or the evaluation of the news article, an
explicit statement to identify the switch is made.
• In text citations are present to support statements
• Evidence as to why the hypothesis was/was not supported is explained
in the conclusion
• Evidence as to why the news article did a good/poor job of explaining
the scientific study is present in the evaluation
• Is at least 3 sentences
• Conclusion (explanation as to why the hypothesis was or was not
supported) is present
• Evaluation of the news article is present
• Grammar rules are followed
•
Paper and references are in APA format
DSL 200 Scientific News Journals
You will be responsible for writing four journals throughout the duration of the term. The
lowest grade will be dropped.
The assignment
For each project, you will be given a news story and a scientific journal article that goes with it,
posted to iTunes U by the instructor. Each of these journal articles will have been published in
a reputable online magazine, newspaper, or journal. The news story may or may not be.
You will then write a short essay, 1-2 pages in length, detailing the parts of the scientific
method discussed in your article and comparing that information to what was reported in the
news story. Each entry will be written in a logical and professional manner using the APA
template attached to the post.
The entire entry must be written IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Direct quotes of the articles are not
allowed. However, when you summarize or paraphrase something from one of the articles you
will need to provide an in-text APA reference. The guide to APA referencing is attached to this
post.
The essay must be written entirely in third person. DO NOT USE FIRST OR SECOND PERSON.
This means you cannot use the words “I”, “we”, or “you”.
What is turned in to the instructor?
For each week that a journal assignment is due, you will submit your journal entry via LiveText
by its due date.
Entry Content
You will be graded on the following content that combines information you obtain from both
the news story and the scientific article:
Introduction (1 paragraph)
This section identify which of the two articles was the scientific study and the subject of
the scientific study. You will also identify the problem or observation that spurred the
research. DO NOT LIST THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY ITSELF HERE. You will identify the
hypothesis the scientists were testing. Remember that a hypothesis is a testable
educated guess. Thus, it is not appropriate to pose a question here. However, while
reading your articles, it can be helpful to ask yourself what explanation scientists tried to
use to explain their initial observation. You will then transition into the body of the
journal.
Body (~1 paragraph each)
Here, you will identify the test or experiment that was performed to address the
hypothesis. You should be detailed here. It may be helpful to pull from other sources, if
you do not fully understand how the experiment was conducted. After detailing how
the experiment was done compared to how it reported in the media, you will transition
into a discussion of the results.
In this section of your entry you will identify the experimental results that the scientists
obtained. What did the scientists find after doing their experiment? Again, you can be
detailed here. After detailing the results, you will transition into the conclusion sections.
The last paragraph of the body should explain the conclusion of the study. You should
address whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected, and how the results led to
that finding. Also provide a possible new avenue of research the scientists might pursue
based on what was discovered in this study.
Evaluation (1 paragraph)
Here you will signal the end of your entry. In this section you will identify the new study
about the scientific study and discuss whether or not the news story was a
representative reporting of the scientific study. Did the news change anything or leave
out something important from the scientific study? Summarize the important content
from your entry, then you will end with a definitive final statement.
Constructing your journal entry
In addition to the criteria above, you will be graded on the quality of your writing; please write
with proper grammar, punctuation, and style. The essay will be graded using the Dialogues of
Learning Written Communication Rubric.
All sources (including the original 2 articles) should be properly documented. You must
include an APA style reference page. See iTunes U on detailing APA style. Your TurnItIn score
should be below 20 for this assignment. Any journals with a score above 20 will automatically
receive a 0. If this happens, a student may request to withdraw their submission, revise it, and
turn it back in with a late penalty.
Vegetarians and Vegans More Compassionate Than Omnivores,
Study Finds
healthyeatingharbor.com/vegetarians-vegans-more-compassionate
By Sebastijan Veselic
This time, something from the neuroscience department. Believe it or not – dividing people by their eating habits has
been of interest in the field of neuroscience too. A group of researchers was trying to find out something very
interesting – do our brains work differently just because of different eating patterns?
In the first case they were interested whether there would be differences in brain activation among vegetarians,
vegans, and omnivores when it came to seeing images of human and animal suffering. I’m sure we can guess the
obvious results, but some interesting results came up along the way.
In the second case they were interested whether there would be anything different if they showed them a silent
video of people, monkeys, and pigs biting, or in the other scenario, opening their mouths.
The study included 20 omnivores, 19 vegetarians, and 21 vegans. All were healthy and had no history of serious
disease that could affect the results. Vegans and vegetarians were selected for the study if they decided for this
eating pattern because of ethical or moral reasons.
What did they find out?
They found out that the activation of certain brain areas was different among omnivores, vegetarians, and
vegans, when they were seeing pictures of animals or humans that were suffering, who would have thought.
When omnivores were seeing scenes of animal and human suffering, they had a greater activation of the posterior
middle temporal gyrus (MTG) whose current function is unknown. It is a part of the brain located near your ears – if
you go inside of course.
What about the really interesting stuff?
Vegetarians and vegans had a higher activation of brain areas that are related to empathy when they were
viewing scenes of suffering.
This was independent whether they were shown animals or people – their brain had a more intense
empathetic response to suffering when compared to omnivores.
They had a higher activation of empathy-related brain areas when they were watching scenes of suffering
that had animals in them, rather than people.
Let us hold here for a second.
Could that mean that vegans and vegetarians have more empathy than omnivores – not only when it comes to
animals, but in general too?
1/2
Do they really have more empathy?
It is important to understand that despite recording higher brain activity in areas that are related to empathy, it
doesn’t necessarily mean those people are automatically more empathetic. That is why they also had to fill out a
self-report questionnaire about their empathy.
They noted that connections between the scores on this test and the brain activation was positive in vegetarians and
vegans, and negative in omnivores. As one would suspect based on the previous paragraphs. This can be regarded
as a “safety net” of sorts so they could make their findings more conclusive.
Another intriguing finding is that vegetarians and vegans had a reduction in the activity of the right amygdala when
they were watching scenes of animal suffering.
Amygdala
The amygdala is responsible for the processing of memory and emotional reactions, especially negative emotions
such as fear.
Credit source: Wikipedia Commons
Those red dots are the left and right amygdala.
This might suggest that it was down-regulated by areas
in the front part of our brain. These frontal areas modify
emotions to a certain extent, and the noted downregulation was probably an attempt to regulate their
emotional response during those scenes.
In conclusion
Vegetarians and vegans, compared to omnivores, show more brain activation in areas related to empathy when
presented with images of suffering – be it animal or human.
Their brain also has a stronger response when it comes to scenes of animal suffering as opposed to human
suffering.
Now, what I am curious about is, would you agree with these findings from personal experience, or do you think it is
total hogwash?
The Brain Functional Networks Associated to Human and Animal Suffering Differ among Omnivores,
Vegetarians and Vegans (2010), PLoS one
© Copyright Healthy Eating Harbor 2015
2/2
The Brain Functional Networks Associated to Human and
Animal Suffering Differ among Omnivores, Vegetarians
and Vegans
Massimo Filippi1,2*, Gianna Riccitelli1, Andrea Falini3, Francesco Di Salle4, Patrik Vuilleumier5, Giancarlo
Comi2, Maria A. Rocca1,2
1 Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, Scientific Institute and University Hospital San Raffaele, Milan, Italy,
2 Department of Neurology, Scientific Institute and University Hospital San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, 3 Department of Neuroradiology, Scientific Institute and University
Hospital San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, 4 Maastricht Brain Imaging Center, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands,
5 University Medical Center of Geneva, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Abstract
Empathy and affective appraisals for conspecifics are among the hallmarks of social interaction. Using functional MRI, we
hypothesized that vegetarians and vegans, who made their feeding choice for ethical reasons, might show brain responses
to conditions of suffering involving humans or animals different from omnivores. We recruited 20 omnivore subjects, 19
vegetarians, and 21 vegans. The groups were matched for sex and age. Brain activation was investigated using fMRI and an
event-related design during observation of negative affective pictures of human beings and animals (showing mutilations,
murdered people, human/animal threat, tortures, wounds, etc.). Participants saw negative-valence scenes related to
humans and animals, alternating with natural landscapes. During human negative valence scenes, compared with
omnivores, vegetarians and vegans had an increased recruitment of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and inferior frontal
gyrus (IFG). More critically, during animal negative valence scenes, they had decreased amygdala activation and increased
activation of the lingual gyri, the left cuneus, the posterior cingulate cortex and several areas mainly located in the frontal
lobes, including the ACC, the IFG and the middle frontal gyrus. Nonetheless, also substantial differences between
vegetarians and vegans have been found responding to negative scenes. Vegetarians showed a selective recruitment of the
right inferior parietal lobule during human negative scenes, and a prevailing activation of the ACC during animal negative
scenes. Conversely, during animal negative scenes an increased activation of the inferior prefrontal cortex was observed in
vegans. These results suggest that empathy toward non conspecifics has different neural representation among individuals
with different feeding habits, perhaps reflecting different motivational factors and beliefs.
Citation: Filippi M, Riccitelli G, Falini A, Di Salle F, Vuilleumier P, et al. (2010) The Brain Functional Networks Associated to Human and Animal Suffering Differ
among Omnivores, Vegetarians and Vegans. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10847. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847
Editor: Pedro Antonio Valdes-Sosa, Cuban Neuroscience Center, Cuba
Received March 19, 2010; Accepted May 5, 2010; Published May 26, 2010
Copyright: ß 2010 Filippi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: filippi.massimo@hsr.it
suggests that the merging between emotions and feelings
experienced by oneself and those perceived in other individuals
may be a key ingredient of social understanding, and it may play
a major role in promoting empathy, prosocial behaviours, and
moral norms [1,3]. Moreover, empathic responses can be
modulated by the subjective attitude held toward suffering
individuals [7], as well as by personal experience [8]. Several
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies showed
that observing the emotional state of another individual activates
a neuronal network involved in processing the same state in
oneself, whether it is pain, disgust, or touch[3,4,5]. Empathy
toward another person, which can be defined as the ability to
share the other person’s feeling in an embodied manner, has been
related to recruitment of a network mostly including the
somatosensory and insular cortices, limbic regions and the
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Whereas cognitively inferring
about the state of other person (known as theory of mind) has
been associated with recruitment of medial prefrontal regions, the
superior temporal sulcus and the temporo-parietal junction[4].
Introduction
Social cognition includes mental processes necessary to
understand and store information about the self and other
persons, as well as interpersonal norms and procedures to
navigate efficiently in the social world [1]. Basic abilities
underlying social cognition include the perception and evaluation
of social stimuli, the integration of perceptions with contextual
knowledge, and finally the representation of possible responses to
the situation. One of the hallmarks of social cognition in humans
is the ability to understand conspecifics as beings like oneself, with
intentional and mental lives like one’s own [2]. Accordingly,
human beings tend to identify with conspecifics and attribute
mental states to them. Such abilities rely on the activity of several
brain regions, including the frontal lobes (orbitofrontal cortex,
medial prefrontal cortex, and cingulate cortex), the temporal
lobes (including the amygdala), the fusiform gyrus, and the
somatosensory cortices [3,4,5]. The majority of these regions is
also critically involved in the processing of emotions [6]. This
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
1
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
A few investigations have also assessed whether affective links
between people modulate their brain empathic responses to others,
such as when these are loved ones or strangers[9], or when they
are believed to be fair or unfair persons [7,9]. The majority of
previous studies attempting to characterize empathy-related
responses did not separate empathy towards humans from that
towards animals. Furthermore, in some studies, scenes showing
animals were treated as a neutral condition. However, a recent
study [10] that compared stimuli depicting human and non
human animal targets demonstrated higher subjective empathy as
the stimuli became closer in phylogenetic relatedness to humans
(mammalian vs. bird stimuli), thus indicating that empathic
response towards humans may generalize to other species.
In this study, we postulated that the neural representation of
conditions of abuse and suffering might be different among
subjects who made different feeding choice due to ethical reasons,
and thus result in the engagement of different components of the
brain networks associated with empathy and social cognition. In
details, we tested the hypothesis that the neural processes
underlying empathy in vegetarians and vegans may not only
operate for representations about humans but also animals, and
thus vary between them and omnivore subjects. Vegetarians and
vegans, who decided to avoid the use of animal products for
ethical reasons, have a moral philosophy of life based on a set of
basic values and attitudes toward life, nature, and society, that
extends well beyond food choice. The earliest records of
vegetarianism as a concept and practice among a significant
number of people was closely connected with the idea of
nonviolence towards animals and was promoted by religious
groups and philosophers. The term veganism, which was coined
from vegetarianism, acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all
sentient life and rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering
among creatures. Veganism is a lifestyle that seeks to exclude the
use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose [11]. The
central ethical question related to veganism is whether it is right
for humans to use and kill animals. Due to these differences of
believes and behaviours, we also hypothesized that, in addition to
a common shared pattern of cortical processing of human and
animal suffering, vegetarians and vegans might also have
functional architecture differences reflecting their different
motivational factors and believes.
Figure 1. Graph showing error bars of means and standard
deviations of empathy quotient (EQ) score in the three groups
of subjects. See text for further details.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.g001
Between-group fMRI results
The patterns of activations during the neutral condition did not
differ between groups.
Common regions of activations between vegetarians and
vegans
During human negative valence picture view, omnivore
subjects had a more significant activation (p,0.05, FWE) of the
bilateral middle temporal gyrus (MTG) (MNI space coordinates:
38, 258, 8, t value = 5.65; and 236, 276, 8, t value = 5.56) when
compared to vegetarians and vegans. Compared to omnivore
subjects, the entire sample of vegetarians and vegans had more
significant activations (p,0.05, FWE) of the ACC (MNI space
coordinates: 10, 22, 40; 10, 36, 28, and 24, 30, 36; t
values = 5.65, 5.43, and 5.30), and the left inferior frontal gyrus
(IFG) (MNI space coordinates: 248, 20, 0, t value = 5.56)
(Figure 3).
During animal negative valence picture view, omnivore subjects
had more significant activations (p,0.05, FWE) of the bilateral
MTG (MNI space coordinates: 246, 262, 0, t value = 6.03; and
34, 274, 4, t value = 5.94), when compared to vegetarians and
vegans. Compared to omnivore subjects, the entire sample of
vegetarians and vegans had more significant activations (p,0.05,
FWE) of the bilateral IFG (MNI space coordinates: 250, 14, 22, t
value = 6.84; and 52, 14, 24, t value = 6.34), bilateral lingual gyrus
(MNI space coordinates: 8, 280, 214, t value = 6.83; and 210,
278, 214, t value = 6.58), ACC (MNI space coordinates: 0, 24,
28; 22, 52, 8; t values = 5.76 and 5.51), posterior cingulate cortex
(PCC) (MNI space coordinates: 0, 242, 26, t value = 5.87), left
cuneus (MNI space coordinates: 22, 278, 24, t value = 5.83), and
left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) (MNI space: 244, 46, 8, t
value = 5.50) (Figure 3). This analysis also showed that, compared
to omnivores, vegetarians and vegans had a lower activation of the
right amygdala (MNI space coordinates: 30, 2, 220, t
value = 5.38). To better define amygdala behavior in the three
groups of subjects, we analyzed its activations and deactivations
during the two experimental conditions in each group (Tables 1
and 2). This analysis revealed no significant activation neither
deactivation (even when lowering the threshold for the statistical
Results
Empathy assessment
The Empathy quotient (EQ) score was significantly different
between groups (p = 0.002). At post-hoc analysis, the EQ score was
significantly higher in vegetarians in comparison with omnivore
subjects (mean EQ score = 49.5, SD = 8.9 in vegetarians vs. 38.8,
SD = 8.1 in omnivore; p = 0.001), and in vegans (mean EQ
score = 44.6, SD = 9.8) in comparison with omnivore subjects
(p = 0.04) (Figure 1). The difference between vegans and
vegetarians was not statistically significant.
Within-group fMRI results
The observation of both human and animal negative valence
scenes resulted in the recruitment of several brain areas involved in
emotion and empathy in the three groups of subjects, including the
anterior insula, basal ganglia, thalami, and several other cortical
areas located in the occipital lobes, prefrontal and parietal cortices.
Figure 2 shows the brain patterns of activations in the three groups
of subjects during the different experimental conditions. Table 1
summarizes the main results of within-group comparisons of the
two experimental conditions.
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
2
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
Figure 2. Within-group analysis of activations. Cortical activations on a rendered brain from omnivore (A–H), vegetarian (I–R) and vegan (S–W)
subjects during observation of pictures showing negative valence scenes of humans (A–D, I–N, S–V) or animals (E–H, O–R, Z–W) (within-group
analysis, one-sample t tests, t = 3 for display purpose). Images are in neurological convention.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.g002
significance at a p,0.001, uncorrected) during animal picture
view in this region in vegetarians and vegans.
Analysis of interaction
To further explore the specificity of stimulus processing within the
three groups of subjects, we performed an analysis of interaction
between picture types (animal/human) and groups (omnivore/
vegetarian/vegan). Results showed an interaction in the right
amygdala (MNI space coordinates: 24, 210, 222) (greater increases
to animal negative valence view in omnivores and to human negative
valence view in vegans) (Figure 3), the left amygdala (222, 28, 228)
(greater increases to human negative valence view in vegans)
(Figure 4), the ACC (MNI space coordinates: 22, 52, 10) (preferential
increases to human negative valence view in omnivores, and to
animal negative valence view in vegetarians) (Figure 4); and the right
IFG (MNI space coordinates: 52, 20, 28) (selective responses to
animal negative valence view in vegans) (Figure 4).
Table 2 summarizes the behavior, in terms of activations/
deactivations, at the within-group one sample t test analysis of the
three main areas which showed a significant interaction between
groups and conditions (i.e., amygdala, IFG, and ACC).
Different regions of activations between vegetarians and
vegans
We also directly compared the neural responses in empathy and
emotion-related networks between omnivores, vegetarians, and
vegans, using a masking procedure (See Methods), to identify
regions of specific activations of each group contrasted to the
others.
a) Vegetarians vs. omnivores and vegans. Observation of
human negative valence scenes resulted in a selective recruitment
of the right IPL (BA40) (MNI space coordinates: 52, 250, 40, t
value = 4.44) in vegetarians (Figure 3). For animal pictures,
activations specific to vegetarians were found in the ACC (MNI
space coordinates: 22, 52, 10, t value = 5.02) and the right lingual
gyrus (MNI space coordinates: 8, 284, 210, t value = 5.00)
(p,0.05, FWE).
b) Vegans vs. omnivores and vegetarians. During human
negative valence picture view, no cortical activation ‘‘specific’’ to
vegans was found. During animal negative valence picture view,
vegans activated the IFG bilaterally (MNI space coordinates: 54,
16, 26, and 246, 18, 22, t values = 4.88 and 4.67), and the left
MFG (BA10) (MNI space coordinates: 246, 48, 4, t value = 4.29)
(Figure 3) (p,0.05, FWE).
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
Analysis of correlations
During human negative valence picture view, no correlation
was found between EQ score and fMRI activity in the three
groups of subjects of the study.
During animal negative picture view, significant correlations
(p,0.001) were found between EQ score and:
3
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
Table 1. Within-group comparisons of human vs. animal negative valence picture view and vice versa in omnivore subjects,
vegetarians and vegans (paired t test in each group, p,0.05 FWE-corrected).
Human vs. animal pictures
Animal vs. human pictures
Omnivore
Vegetarians
Vegans
Omnivore
Vegetarians
Vegans
MNI
coordinates
X Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
Activation sites
BA
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
R amygdala
-
-
R MTG
37
46,
L MTG
37
248, 274,
264,
30, 216, 222
26,
28, 218
22,
-
-
2
60, 232, 2
44,
56,
264, 10
8,
228
-
-
-
26
-
262, 250, 2
252, 22, 222
-
-
-
24,
226
R lingual gyrus
19
14,
254,
22
-
-
-
-
-
L lingual gyrus
19
210, 266,
22
-
-
-
-
-
R cuneus
18
16,
280,
28
14, 286,
R precuneus
7
8,
254,
43
-
R insula
-
-
38, 24,
R thalamus
-
-
-
28
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,
226, 0
26, 24
R putamen
-
-
-
30,
L putamen
-
-
-
228, 6,
R IOG
-
-
-
-
210
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
250, 266, 214
20,
286,
212
L IOG
-
-
-
-
230, 282,
210
-
L IPL
40
-
-
-
248, 256,
46
-
-
R MFG
-
-
-
-
38,
50
-
-
4,
L MFG
-
-
-
-
240, 14,
36
-
-
R IFG
-
-
-
-
44,
28
-
46,
ACC
32
-
-
-
-
0,
50,
PCC
23
-
-
-
-
2,
250, 20
44,
10
22,
28
240,
26
0,
MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute, R = right, L = left, BA = Brodmann area, MTG = middle temporal gyrus, IOG = inferior occipital gyrus, IPL = inferior parietal lobule,
MFG = middle frontal gyrus, IFG = inferior frontal gyrus, ACC = anterior cingulate cortex, PCC = posterior cingulate cortex.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.t001
N
N
N
activation of the left MTG (r = 0.87), ACC (r = 20.76) and the
bilateral IFG (right IFG: r = 20.71, left IFG: r = 20.89) in
omnivores;
activation of the left IFG (r = 0.92), the left MFG (r = 0.68),
and the right MTG (r = 20.75) in vegetarians;
activation of the bilateral lingual gyrus (right lingual gyrus:
r = 0.69, left lingual gyrus: r = 0.75) and the left IFG (r = 0.78)
in vegans.
regarding animals rather than humans, with the additional
recruitment of the mPFC, PCC, and some visual areas. ACC
has been associated with alert states, self awareness and pain
processing [12], whereas mPFC and PCC activations are
frequently observed in conditions involving representation of the
self and self values [13]. The PCC is also thought to be involved in
memory and visuospatial processing [14], particularly in relation
to emotions and social behavior [13]. PCC is consistently activated
when subjects have to judge the valence of emotionally salient
words or episodic memories, with the strongest responses seen
when unpleasant stimuli are presented [14].
The notion that empathic response might differ among
vegetarians, vegans and omnivores, and that such a response
might vary during viewing of human and animal sufferance is at
least partially supported by the results of EQ assessment in the
three groups of subjects and by the analysis of correlation between
EQ scores and fMRI findings, which showed a direct relationship
between the EQ score and left IFG recruitment during animal
suffering view in vegetarians and vegans, whereas in omnivores
such a relationship was inverse.
The pattern of increased recruitment of empathy-related areas
in vegetarians and vegans during animal suffering view was also
associated with a reduced activation of the right amygdala in
comparison to omnivores. The amygdala responds to various kinds
of aversive stimuli, most strongly fearful and threatening scenes
[15] and, to a lesser extent, to those associated with disgust [16].
Discussion
The first main finding of this study was the demonstration of a
common functional architecture of emotional processing in
vegetarians and vegans. In particular, while omnivores are
characterized by a greater activation of the bilateral posterior
MTG during both human and animal negative valence scenes,
vegetarians and vegans have constantly an higher engagement of
empathy related areas while observing negative scenes, independently of the species of the individuals involved, which is
characterized by an increased recruitment of the ACC and the
IFG. Increased activation in the ACC and left IFG in vegetarians
and vegans during human and animal suffering view is likely to
reflect a stronger empathic response in the first two groups.
Remarkably, vegetarians and vegans have an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
4
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
Figure 3. Results of the between-group comparisons of emotional (human and animal) negative valence picture views. Results are
superimposed on a high resolution T1-weighted image in the standard MNI space, at a threshold of p,0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons. Areas
activated during human picture view in vegetarians and vegans vs. omnivores are shown in yellow. Activations specific for vegetarians are shown in
blue. Activations specific for vegans are shown in red. A: human picture view; B: animal picture view. Images are in neurological convention.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.g003
Remarkably, the within-group analysis during animal picture
view, showed the absence of signal changes (in terms of activations
and deactivations) within the amygdala in vegetarians and vegans,
suggesting a down-regulation of amygdala response from areas
located in the frontal lobes, in an attempt to regulate emotion
through cortical processes in these subjects.
Table 2. Cluster maxima coordinates of activations/deactivations, at the within-group one sample t test analysis of the areas
which showed a significant interaction between groups and conditions (p,0.001, uncorrected).
Human vs. neutral pictures
Activation sites
Animal vs. neutral pictures
Omnivores
Vegetarians
Vegans
Omnivores
Vegetarians
Vegans
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
MNI
coordinates
X
Y
Z
R amygdala
32,
L amygdala
222, 24, 216
2,
224
ACC
12,
36,
R IFG
50,
30, 14
22
28,
214, 216
224, 212, 218
30,
28, 22
224, 26, 224
224
-
-
222, 24, 220
26,
0,
-
222, 22, 224
24, 34,
26
216, 46, 28
6,
36,
20
14,
46, 212
212, 24,
50,
8
50,
50,
32,
14
44,
16, 20
48,
28,
30, 2
28
28, 22
MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute, R = right, L = left, IFG = inferior frontal gyrus, ACC = anterior cingulate cortex.
Note that none of the regions shown in the table was significantly deactivated (one-sample t test).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.t002
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
5
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
Figure 4. Interactions between stimuli (animal/human) and groups (omnivore/vegetarian/vegan). An interaction was found in the right
amygdala (A), indicating greater increase to animal negative valence picture view in omnivores and to human negative valence picture view in
vegans. An interaction between ‘‘human pictures’’ and ‘‘vegan group’’ was also found in the left amygdala (A). An interaction was found in ACC (B)
between the ‘‘omnivore group’’ and ‘‘human pictures’’, as well as between ‘‘vegetarian group’’ and ‘‘animal pictures’’; and in the right IFG between
‘‘animal pictures’’ and ‘‘vegan group’’ (C). Foci of activations are shown on a high-resolution T1-weighted image in the standard MNI space. Plots
indicate activation changes detected in the three groups during the two experimental conditions in each of these regions. Images are in neurological
convention.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010847.g004
The second main finding of this study is the demonstration of
strong functional architecture differences between the vegetarians
and vegans during observation of negative scenes. During human
suffering viewing, activations specific to vegetarians were located
along the IPL. The IPL is involved in bodily representations that
distinguish the self from the other [3], and was found to be more
activated when pictures of mutilations were presented than when
contamination or neutral pictures were shown[17], which suggests
a stronger effect on the somatosensory system in observers exposed
to the former than the latter conditions.
More critically, for animal pictures, activations specific to
vegetarians were found in the ACC and the lingual gyrus, whereas
activations specific to vegans were found in the bilateral IFG and
the left MFG. Our data, therefore, point to differential ACC
responses to animal suffering for vegetarians, a region highly
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
interconnected with limbic and prefrontal structures that is
thought to play a key role in normal and dysfunctional emotional
self-control as well as social behaviour [18]. ACC activation has
been related to awareness of emotional material, attention to
emotional stimuli [19], and rating of affect intensity. In a metaanalysis study, Phan et al. [20] found that emotional tasks with
explicit cognitive components (e.g., recognition or evaluation of
emotional stimuli and biographic material) engaged specifically the
ACC as compared to passive emotional conditions. The ACC has
also been associated with alertness and attention, notably in terms
of response control and during painful stimulation [21]. The
recruitment of this region in vegetarians might therefore
correspond to their distinctive behavioral response to pictures of
animal suffering, e.g., enhanced attention and empathic pain [21],
or increased self control and monitoring [22]. On the other hand,
6
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
the activation of the inferior prefrontal cortex (IFG) seen in vegans
during animal suffering, which is consistent with a role of such a
region in different emotional tasks [20], may be related to aspects
of cognitive control during emotion processing. Notably, right IFG
is critically involved in inhibitory processes during both cognitive
[23] and emotional [24] conditions. In addition, even if the
existence of the mirror-neuron system (MNS) in humans is still
controversial, the IFG is also considered to be part of such a
system, since these regions are often activated during action
observation, motor learning and imitation of action [25].
Activation of MNS areas has been shown to increase during
social interaction, as well as during observation and imitation of
emotional faces [25]. The role of the MNS in social cognition is
also supported by studies in patients with autism, who show a
reduced recruitment of the MNS, and in particular of the IFG,
during observation and imitation of facial expressions [25]. Our
findings therefore suggest a distinctive pattern of empathic
response and emotional control in vegans, mediated through the
IFG and MFG.
Between-group differences in stimuli processing were also
confirmed by an analysis of interaction, which showed greater
increases to animal negative valence view in omnivores and to
human negative valence view in vegans in the amygdala, a
preferential increase to human negative valence view in omnivores, and to animal negative valence view in vegetarians in the
ACC, and selective responses to animal negative valence view in
vegans in the right IFG. Intriguingly, an inverse correlation
between amygdala response and activation in the right PFC and
ACC has previously been shown during emotional tasks [26]. In
humans, this system is thought to control and direct emotional
responses through appraisal and evaluation of their experiences.
Such an inverse correlation (i.e., decreased activation of the
amygdala together with increased activations of the ACC and
PFC) has also been demonstrated during ‘‘reappraisal’’, which
implies altering the meaning of a potentially emotion-eliciting
situations in order to reduce their emotional impact [27],
suggesting that cortical networks of prefrontal regions can exert
a cognitive modulation on emotion processing in the amygdala,
particularly during intense emotional responses. An alternative
hypothesis that has been considered is that limbic structures, such
as the amygdala, might respond preferentially to emotive stimuli at
a sensory level, and less likely to be engaged in the cognitive
processing of emotional material [28].
Collectively, our results reveal that distinct brain responses are
evoked by emotionally significant pictures of humans and animals
in people with vegetarian and vegan feeding habits, as well as
between vegetarians and vegans, suggesting that different
motivational factors might underlie their preferences and moral
attitudes. Vegetarians showed distinctive responses to negative
valence scenes of animals in the ACC, but also to negative valence
scenes of humans in the IPL, which might be consistent with
greater empathic pain responses and/or enhanced attention in this
group for these two conditions. On the other hand, the selective
response of vegans to animals in the ACC (with reduced amygdala
responses) might reflect a greater attribution of self-relevance [13]
and a greater recruitment of emotional regulation mechanisms
[15,26] when viewing negative states of non-human beings,
together with an enhanced activation of the motor MNS and
inhibitory control processes mediated through the MFG and the
IFG, respectively. By contrast, omnivores, showed greater
responses to human negative valence scenes in the ACC (together
with reduced amygdala activation), suggesting that self-relevance
and emotion control mechanisms were more specifically engaged
by viewing suffering conspecifics than suffering animal beings.
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
Our study is the first to assess the neural correlates of empathy
towards non conspecifics in people with different social norms, as
reflected by their feeding habits. Our results converge with
theories that consider empathy as accommodating a shared
representation of emotions and sensations between individuals,
allowing us to understand others [3]. They also led us to speculate
that the neuronal bases of empathy involve several distinct
components including mirroring mechanisms [25], as well as
emotion contagion and representations of connectedness with the
self [29]. In addition, brain areas similar to those showing different
emotional responses between groups in our study (such as the IFG
and the mPFC) have also been found to be modulated by
religiosity [30], further supporting a key role of affect and empathy
in moral reasoning and social values.
This study is not without limitations. First, the use of neutral
scenes as a ‘‘baseline’’ condition does not allow defining the neural
response to suffering per se, since the response might be influenced
by seeing humans or animals. Second, even if a questionnaire
related to feeding habits and the EQ were obtained from all the
study subjects, affective and cognitive responses during fMRI
acquisition were not recorded. Clearly, further studies are
warranted to confirm our results.
Materials and Methods
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Scientific
Institute and University Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy and a
written informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to
study entry, according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
a) Subjects
We studied 60 right-handed [31] healthy subjects (34 women,
and 26 men, mean age = 37.7 years, range = 18–60 years), with
different dietary habits. All subjects had normal or corrected-tonormal vision. We recruited 20 omnivore subjects (11 women and
9 men; mean age = 36.9 years, range = 22–60 years), 19
vegetarians (11 women and 8 men; mean age = 40.3 years,
range = 23–60 years), and 21 vegans (12 women and 9 men; mean
age = 36.3 years, range = 18–53 years). The groups did not
statistically differ for sex and age. A questionnaire was filled in
by all the subjects before fMRI acquisition to investigate feeding
habits, reasons/motivations of the feeding choices, and the time
elapsed from such a choice. All vegetarians and vegans reported to
have made their feeding choice for ethical reasons. They had
stable feeding habit since 3.8 years (SD = 8.7 years), and were
recruited among vegetarian associations. Omnivore subjects were
recruited by advertisement and none of them had been vegetarian
or vegan before the study. Eight vegans had been vegetarians
before becoming vegans. All the subjects were naı̈ve about the goal
of the study. None of the subjects had any history of neurological,
major medical, or psychiatric disorders (including depression), and
either alcohol or drug abuse. In addition, none of the subjects was
taking any medical treatment at the time of fMRI assessment and
all of them had a normal neurological examination.
b) Empathy assessment
On the day of fMRI acquisition, subjects were evaluated with
the EQ questionnaire [32], a self-report questionnaire which has
been developed to measure the cognitive and affective aspects of
empathy. This questionnaire is widely used in clinical research
[32,33], as well as in neuroscience studies [34]. The EQ comprises
60 questions: 40 questions tapping empathy, and 20 filler/control
items. The 20 filler/control items have been included to distract
the participant from a relentless focus on empathy. On each
7
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
empathy item, a person can score 2, 1, or 0, so that the EQ has a
maximum score of 80 and a minimum score of 0. To avoid
response bias, approximately half of the employed items are
worded to produce a ‘‘disagree’’ response and half to produce an
‘‘agree’’ response [32]. The EQ has a forced choice format, can be
self-administered, and is straightforward to score because it does
not depend on any interpretation.
were realigned to the first one to correct for subject motion,
spatially normalized into the Montreal Neurological Institute
(MNI) space, and smoothed with a 10-mm, 3D-Gaussian FWHM
filter.
g) Statistical analysis
Event-related paradigms for each condition were modelled on a
voxel-by-voxel basis, using the general linear model and the theory
of random Gaussian fields [36]. In each subject, a first-level design
matrix was built, where motion parameters were used as regressors
of no interest. Then, specific effects were tested by applying
appropriate linear contrasts. For each subject, the following
contrasts were defined: human negative valence images . neutral,
and animal negative valence images . neutral. To test whether
between-group differences in processing the neutral conditions
might have influenced our results, the contrast assessing activations
of neutral images was also defined. Significant hemodynamic
changes for each contrast were assessed using t statistical parametric
maps (SPMt). Then, a second level random effect analysis was
performed to assess the main effects of the stimuli, differences
between groups, and interactions between groups and conditions
[37], using an ANOVA model where groups and conditions were
entered as separate factors (263 factorial design). To assess
between-group similarities and differences in the brain patterns of
activations, the following sets of linear comparisons were performed:
1) vegetarians and vegans, separately, vs. omnivores; 2) vegetarians
and vegans, combined, vs. omnivores; 3) vegetarians vs. vegans, and
vice versa. Common patterns of activations between vegetarians
and vegans during a given contrast were identified by a conjunction
analysis [38]. Regions of specific activations of each group
contrasted to the other were identified by inclusively masking
(uncorrected mask p value = 0.05) the relevant contrast from
comparison 1 (e.g., vegetarians vs. omnivores) with the appropriate
contrast from comparison 3 (e.g., vegetarians vs. vegans).
Intra-group activations were evaluated using a one-sample t test
and a paired t test, as appropriate. At this stage, task-related
activations and deactivations were estimated. We report activations below a threshold of p,0.05 corrected for multiple
comparisons (FWE). Within each region of statistical significance,
local maxima of signal increase were determined and their
locations expressed in terms of x, y, and z coordinates into the
MNI space. A 3D anatomical atlas was also used to increase
confidence in the identification of the anatomical locations of the
activated areas [39]. Using a linear regression analysis, the
correlation of fMRI changes during task performance with EQ
score was assessed (p,0.001, uncorrected).
Demographic and behavioral data were compared using the
SPSS software and an ANOVA model (version 13.0).
c) Experimental design
During fMRI, an event-related design was used. A program
implemented with the Presentation software (www.neuro-bs.com,
Version 9.70) presented in a random order a series of 150 pictures:
40 showed negative valence scenes related to humans, 40 negative
valence scenes related to animals, and the remaining 70 showed
‘‘neutral’’ natural landscapes. Pictures were pseudo-randomized so
that no more than two pictures of the same category were
presented consecutively. Negative-valence scenes were taken from
the International Affective Picture System [35], newspapers,
books, or magazines (all images were of high-quality resolution
and taken in an electronic format). Scenes had to show the entire
figure and not only the face of the subject/animal. Human and
animal pictures were comparable in terms of valence and arousal
rating. Non-IAPS pictures were validated in a group of 50 healthy
subjects that did not participate in the fMRI experiment. To assess
the three dimensions of pleasure, arousal, and dominance, the
rating procedure by Lang was used [35].
Each trial began with a fixation cross presented in the centre of
the screen for 3 sec, followed by the pictures, in a random order,
presented for 2 sec followed by black screen. A variable interstimuls
interval was used. Subjects were instructed to look at the scenes,
without providing any specific response during fMRI acquisition.
d) fMRI acquisition
Brain MRI scans were obtained using a 3.0 Tesla scanner
(Intera Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands) with a
gradient strength of 40 mT/m. Functional MR images were
acquired using a T2*-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging
(EPI) sequence (echo time [TE] = 30 ms, flip angle = 85u, matrix
size = 1286128, field of view [FOV] = 240 mm2, repetition time
[TR] = 3.0 seconds). During each functional scanning run, 151
sets of 40 axial slices, parallel to the AC-PC plane, with a thickness
of 3 mm, covering the whole brain were acquired. Shimming was
performed for the entire brain using an auto-shim routine, which
yielded satisfactory magnetic field homogeneity. Head movements
were minimized using foam paddings.
On the same occasion, a brain dual-echo turbo spin echo
sequence (TR = 3500 ms, TE = 24/120 ms; echo train length = 5;
flip angle = 150u, 44 contiguous, 3-mm-thick, axial slices with a
matrix size = 2566256 and a FOV = 2406240 mm2) was also
acquired.
Author Contributions
f) FMRI analysis
Conceived and designed the experiments: MF FDS PV MAR. Performed
the experiments: GR AF. Analyzed the data: MF GR FDS PV MAR.
Wrote the paper: MF FDS PV GC MAR.
FMRI data were analyzed using the statistical parametric
mapping (SPM2) software. Prior to statistical analysis, all images
References
1. Van Overwalle F (2009) Social cognition and the brain: a meta-analysis. Hum
Brain Mapp 30: 829–858.
2. Decety J, Chaminade T (2003) When the self represents the other: a new
cognitive neuroscience view on psychological identification. Conscious Cogn 12:
577–596.
3. Decety J, Jackson PL (2004) The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 3: 71–100.
4. Hein G, Singer T (2008) I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain
and its modulation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18: 153–158.
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
5. Singer T, Lamm C (2009) The social neuroscience of empathy. Ann N Y Acad
Sci 1156: 81–96.
6. Adolphs R (2002) Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Curr Opin Neurobiol
12: 169–177.
7. Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, et al. (2006)
Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others.
Nature 439: 466–469.
8. Cheng Y, Lin CP, Liu HL, Hsu YY, Lim KE, et al. (2007) Expertise modulates
the perception of pain in others. Curr Biol 17: 1708–1713.
8
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
fMRI and Feeding Habits
9. Singer T, Kiebel SJ, Winston JS, Dolan RJ, Frith CD (2004) Brain responses to
the acquired moral status of faces. Neuron 41: 653–662.
10. Rae Westbury H, Neumann DL (2008) Empathy-related responses to moving
film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative
circumstances. Biol Psychol 78: 66–74.
11. Regan T (1985) The case for animal rights. Berkeley, University of California.
422 p.
12. Mottaghy FM, Willmes K, Horwitz B, Muller HW, Krause BJ, et al. (2006)
Systems level modeling of a neuronal network subserving intrinsic alertness.
Neuroimage 29: 225–233.
13. D’Argembeau A, Stawarczyk D, Majerus S, Collette F, Van der Linden M, et al.
(2009) The Neural Basis of Personal Goal Processing When Envisioning Future
Events. J Cogn Neurosci.
14. Maddock RJ (1999) The retrosplenial cortex and emotion: new insights from
functional neuroimaging of the human brain. Trends Neurosci 22: 310–316.
15. Hariri AR, Tessitore A, Mattay VS, Fera F, Weinberger DR (2002) The
amygdala response to emotional stimuli: a comparison of faces and scenes.
Neuroimage 17: 317–323.
16. Phillips ML, Young AW, Senior C, Brammer M, Andrew C, et al. (1997) A
specific neural substrate for perceiving facial expressions of disgust. Nature 389:
495–498.
17. Schienle A, Schafer A, Hermann A, Walter B, Stark R, et al. (2006) fMRI
responses to pictures of mutilation and contamination. Neurosci Lett 393:
174–178.
18. Devinsky O, Morrell MJ, Vogt BA (1995) Contributions of anterior cingulate
cortex to behaviour. Brain 118 (Pt 1): 279–306.
19. Vuilleumier P, Armony JL, Driver J, Dolan RJ (2001) Effects of attention and
emotion on face processing in the human brain: an event-related fMRI study.
Neuron 30: 829–841.
20. Phan KL, Wager T, Taylor SF, Liberzon I (2002) Functional neuroanatomy of
emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI.
Neuroimage 16: 331–348.
21. Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, et al. (2004) Empathy
for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303:
1157–1162.
22. Botvinick MM (2007) Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two
perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 7:
356–366.
23. Rubia K, Smith AB, Brammer MJ, Taylor E (2003) Right inferior prefrontal
cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible
for error detection. Neuroimage 20: 351–358.
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org
24. Harenski CL, Hamann S (2006) Neural correlates of regulating negative
emotions related to moral violations. Neuroimage 30: 313–324.
25. Iacoboni M (2009) Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annu Rev Psychol
60: 653–670.
26. Hariri AR, Mattay VS, Tessitore A, Fera F, Weinberger DR (2003) Neocortical
modulation of the amygdala response to fearful stimuli. Biol Psychiatry 53:
494–501.
27. Ochsner KN, Gross JJ (2005) The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn
Sci 9: 242–249.
28. Teasdale JD, Howard RJ, Cox SG, Ha Y, Brammer MJ, et al. (1999) Functional
MRI study of the cognitive generation of affect. Am J Psychiatry 156: 209–215.
29. Singer T (2006) The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading:
review of literature and implications for future research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev
30: 855–863.
30. Kapogiannis D, Barbey AK, Su M, Zamboni G, Krueger F, et al. (2009)
Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
106: 4876–4881.
31. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh
inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113.
32. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2004) The empathy quotient: an investigation
of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex
differences. J Autism Dev Disord 34: 163–175.
33. Lawrence EJ, Shaw P, Baker D, Baron-Cohen S, David AS (2004) Measuring
empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychol Med 34:
911–919.
34. Chakrabarti B, Bullmore E, Baron-Cohen S (2006) Empathizing with basic
emotions: common and discrete neural substrates. Soc Neurosci 1: 364–384.
35. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN (2008) International affective picture
system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical
Report A-8, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
36. Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Poline JB, Grasby PJ, Williams SC, et al. (1995) Analysis
of fMRI time-series revisited. Neuroimage 2: 45–53.
37. Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Price CJ, Buchel C, Worsley KJ (1999) Multisubject
fMRI studies and conjunction analyses. Neuroimage 10: 385–396.
38. Friston KJ, Penny WD, Glaser DE (2005) Conjunction revisited. Neuroimage
25: 661–667.
39. Duvernoy HM (1999) The human brain. Surface, blood supply, and threedimensional sectional anatomy. NewYork: SpringerWien.
9
May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10847
Purchase answer to see full
attachment