Table 1.
Psycholinguistic properties of the words based on the pre-experimental ratings.
Fig 1.
Sequence of events in the experimental trials.
(Pseudo)word presentation (marked in blue) was the event of interest for the EEG analysis. Responses were delayed and the two possible response-button-assignments counterbalanced to keep the time window following word presentation (highlighted in blue) free from motor (preparation) artifacts.
Table 2.
Descriptive data of SPF subscale scores.
Table 3.
Data points per subscale per participant included in the N400 and rating LME analyses.
Fig 2.
Grand average ERP curves per word type.
Grand averages emotionality level pooled over the three left hemispheric (F3, FC1, FC5) and three right hemispheric (F4, FC2, FC6) electrodes for all participants (n = 78). Grey areas mark the N400 time window (300-450 ms). Label = emotion-label words, laden = emotion-laden words, neutral = neutral words, pseudo = pseudowords.
Table 4.
Inferential statistics for the SPF subscale LME analyses on N400 amplitudes.
Fig 3.
Emotionality-specific effects of empathic concern scores on N400 amplitudes.
Empathic concern scores displayed from low (M – 2 SD) to high (M + 2 SD) for n = 78 participants. Semi-transparent ribbons indicate 90% confidence intervals.
Fig 4.
Emotionality-specific (A) and laterality-specific effects (B, C) of fantasy scores on N400 amplitudes.
Fantasy scores displayed from low (M – 2 SD) to high (M + 2 SD) for emotion-label, emotion-laden and neutral words (A) and over the left and right hemisphere (B), for n = 78 participants. Semi-transparent ribbons indicate 90% confidence intervals. C. displays topography of current source density over the left and right hemisphere separately for participants with low (n = 41 participants) and high fantasy scores (n = 37 participants) based on a median split. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (uncorrected).
Table 5.
Model comparisons between the models including SPF subscales and the base model.
Table 6.
Inferential statistics for the SPF subscale LME analyses on absolute valence.
Fig 5.
Emotionality-specific effects of (A) empathic concern and (B) fantasy and (C) perspective taking scores on absolute valence ratings.
Absolute values were obtained from the Likert scores provided on the bipolar valence scale (i.e., from 0 to | ± 4|). Empathic concern, fantasy and perspective taking values displayed from low (M −2 SD) to high (M + 2 SD) for n = 76 participants. Semi-transparent ribbons indicate 90% confidence intervals. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (uncorrected).
Table 7.
Inferential statistics for the SPF subscale LME analyses on arousal.
Fig 6.
Emotionality-specific effects of (A) empathic concern and (B) personal distress scores on arousal ratings.
Values were obtained as Likert scores on the arousal scale (i.e., from 1 to 9). Empathic concern and personal distress values displayed from low (M – 2 SD) to high (M + 2 SD) for n = 78 participants. Semi-transparent ribbons indicate 90% confidence intervals. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (uncorrected).
Table 8.
Inferential statistics for the SPF subscale LME analyses on emotional experience.
Fig 7.
Emotionality-specific effects of (A) empathic concern and (B) personal distress scores on emotional experience ratings.
Values were obtained as Likert scores on the emotional experience scale (i.e., from 1 to 9). Empathic concern and personal distress values displayed from low (M – 2 SD) to high (M + 2 SD) for n = 78 participants. Semi-transparent ribbons indicate 90% confidence intervals. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (uncorrected).
Table 9.
Model comparisons between the models including SPF subscales and the base model.