Neural responses to dynamic multimodal stimuli and pathology-specific impairments of social cognition in schizophrenia and depression.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with schizophrenia and people with depression both show abnormal behavioural and neural responses when perceiving and responding to emotional stimuli, but pathology-specific differences and commonalities remain mostly unclear. AIMS: To directly compare empathic responses to dynamic multimodal emotional stimuli in a group with schizophrenia and a group with depression, and to investigate their neural correlates using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). METHOD: The schizophrenia group (n = 20), the depression group (n = 24) and a control group (n = 24) were presented with portrait-shot video clips expressing emotion through three possible communication channels: facial expression, prosody and content. Participants rated their own and the actor's emotional state as an index of empathy. RESULTS: Although no group differences were found in empathy ratings, characteristic differences emerged in the fMRI activation patterns. The schizophrenia group demonstrated aberrant activation patterns during the neutral speech content condition in regions implicated in multimodal integration and formation of semantic constructs. Those in the depression group were most affected during conditions with trimodal emotional and trimodal neutral stimuli, in key regions of the mentalising network. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal characteristic differences in patients with schizophrenia compared with those with depression in their cortical responses to dynamic affective stimuli. These differences indicate that impairments in responding to emotional stimuli may be caused by pathology-specific problems in social cognition.

The differential contribution of facial expressions, prosody, and speech content to empathy.

BACKGROUND: Facial expressions, prosody, and speech content constitute channels by which information is exchanged. Little is known about the simultaneous and differential contribution of these channels to empathy when they provide emotionality or neutrality. Especially neutralised speech content has gained little attention with regards to influencing the perception of other emotional cues. METHODS: Participants were presented with video clips of actors telling short-stories. One condition conveyed emotionality in all channels while the other conditions either provided neutral speech content, facial expression, or prosody, respectively. Participants judged the emotion and intensity presented, as well as their own emotional state and intensity. Skin conductance served as a physiological measure of emotional reactivity. RESULTS: Neutralising channels significantly reduced empathic responses. Electrodermal recordings confirmed these findings. The differential effect of the communication channels on empathy prerequisites was that target emotion recognition of the other decreased mostly when the face was neutral, whereas decreased emotional responses attributed to the target emotion were especially present in neutral speech. CONCLUSION: Multichannel integration supports conscious and autonomous measures of empathy and emotional reactivity. Emotional facial expressions influence emotion recognition, whereas speech content is important for responding with an adequate own emotional state, possibly reflecting contextual emotion-appraisal.