Nociceptive evoked potentials (NEPs).

<p>Group-level average scalp topographies of NEPs (upper and lower panel) and global field power (GFP; lower panel) elicited by stimulation of the left hand dorsum before and after mind-set induction (left and right panel respectively). Butterfly plots show ERPs from 60 channels superimposed in 20 participants. NEPs were elicited by pairs of nociceptive stimuli delivered at a fixed 1 s ISI. Representative scalp topographies of each NEP during ES (black) and MS (red) conditions are shown in the insets. Note the amplitude reduction between S1- and S2-related activity.</p

Scatterplots of mindset-induced changes (Post-Pre) in rating intensity and threat of S2 for both nociceptive and auditory stimuli.

<p>The x axis shows each participants' ratings as a function of increased range of intensity and threat. The corresponding average ratings of intensity and threat are displayed on the y axis. Negative and positive values indicate lower and higher ratings following mind-set induction. Individual data were fitted by a linear function. An increase of both intensity and threat was observed during the MS condition, especially in the nociceptive modality (left panel).</p

Effect of the two mind-sets induction on the nociceptive S2-ER% oscillatory activity at Cz.

<p>Grand average time-frequency representation of nociceptive-related oscillatory activity (as measured at Cz) both before (panel A, top) and after (panel A, bottom) mind-set induction. The a priori identified theta time-frequency ROI was used to extract the “top 10%” of the signal amplitude increase (ER%) relative to the pre-stimulus interval (−0.6 to −0.2 sec before onset of S1). Note the decrease of signal magnitude at S2 following ES mind-set induction (panel A, bottom left). No similar decrease occurred after MS mind-set induction (panel A, bottom right). Panel B: the y axes show single subject and group means of oscillatory amplitude (ER%) before (top) and after (bottom) mind-set induction. Higher ER% magnitude after MS than ES mind-set induction (233±9 vs. 208±6 ER%) (bottom) was detected both by t-test and ANCOVA. ANCOVA revealed that this difference was entirely explained by the modulatory effect of MS on S2 even when regressing out Pre activity. The difference peaked at 262 ms (range: 239–290 ms) and 5 Hz (3.3–6.8 Hz).</p

There was no effect of mind-set induction on the auditory S2-ER% oscillatory activity at Cz.

<p>Grand average time-frequency representation of nociceptive-related oscillatory activity (as measured at Cz) both before (panel A, top) and after (panel A, bottom) mind-set induction. The a priori identified theta time-frequency ROI was used to extract the “top 10%” of signal amplitude increase (ER%) relative to the pre-stimulus interval (−0.6 to −0.2 sec before the onset of S1). Note the decrease of signal magnitude at S2 following mind-set inductions (panel A, bottom left and right). Panel B: the y axes show single subject and group means of oscillatory amplitude (ER%) before (top) and after (bottom) mind-set inductions.</p

Covariation of nociceptive ER% with subjective ratings (left) and demographics (right).

<p>In each scatterplot both MS (red) and ES (blue) conditions are represented with their respective fits. The scatterplot at the left shows that the higher the rating of threat attributed to nociceptive S2, the higher the magnitude of theta activity. More importantly, the different slopes indicate that the increase in the ER% was higher after MS than ES mind-set induction. Similarly, the scatterplot on the right shows that the higher the participant's age the higher the magnitude of theta activity. Note in this case the nearly parallel relationship between the two slopes, which indicates that the effect of age modulated the two mindsets equally.</p

Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs).

<p>Group-level averages, scalp topographies, and global field power (GFP) of AEPs elicited by stimulation of the left hand dorsum before and after mindset induction (upper and lower panel respectively). Butterfly plots show ERPs from 60 channels superimposed in 20 participants. ERPs were elicited by pairs of nociceptive stimuli delivered at a fixed 1 s ISI. Representative scalp topographies of each AEP component during ES (black) and MS (red) conditions are shown in the insets. Note the significant amplitude reduction between S1- and S2-related activity.</p

Supplementary Material from Thermal facial reactivity patterns predict social categorization bias triggered by unconscious and conscious emotional stimuli

Members of highly social species decode, interpret and react to the emotion of a conspecific depending on whether the other belongs to the same (ingroup) or different (outgroup) social group. While studies indicate that consciously perceived emotional stimuli drive social categorization, information about how implicit emotional stimuli and specific physiological signatures affect social categorization is lacking. We addressed this issue by exploring whether subliminal and supraliminal affective priming can influence the categorization of neutral faces as ingroup versus outgroup. Functional infrared thermal imaging was used to investigate whether the effect of affective priming on the categorization decision was moderated by the activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). During the subliminal condition, we found that stronger SNS activation after positive or negative affective primes induced ingroup and outgroup face categorization, respectively. The exact opposite pattern (i.e. outgroup after positive and ingroup after negative primes) was observed in the supraliminal condition. We also found that misattribution effects were stronger in people with low emotional awareness, suggesting that this trait moderates how one recognizes SNS signals and employs them for unrelated decisions. Our results carry out the remarkable implication that low-level affective reactions coupled with sympathetic activation may bias social categorization

Correlations.

<p>A) Perceived Similarity and B) Insecure attachment (Preoccupation with Relationship (PwR); “Relationship as Secondary” (RaS) subscales of the Attachment Scale Questionnaire) were found to significantly predict the absence of self-face recognition advantage (normalized inverse efficiency scores mediated for upright and inverted Self-face, x-axes) in twins.</p

Predicted probability to invest in the Trust Game when considering the three-way interaction effect among Warmth, Trial and RWA.

<p>Predictions are based on estimates derived from simple slopes analysis.</p

Number of lies.

<p>Self-gain and altruistic lies (mean ± standard error) produced by the two subject groups (No-Presence Group, <i>grey bars;</i> Presence Group, <i>black bars</i>) in the two possible opponent (OP) choice outcomes (<i>favourable/unfavourable</i>) in the two conditions (<i>Reputation Risk/No-Reputation Risk</i>) are reported. The number of Self-Gain lies is significantly reduced in the Reputation Risk Condition (p = .01).</p