3 The Aesthetics of Empathy in Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum

Abstract

Objective:

Previous research suggests that individuals with isolated Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum (AgCC) have cognitive and psychosocial deficiencies that include impaired recognition of the emotions of others (Symington et al., 2010) and a diminished ability to infer and describe the emotions of others (Paul et al., 2021; Turk et al., 2010). In addition, galvanic skin responses effectively discriminated between emotional images despite atypical emotion ratings (Paul et al, 2006), supporting a dissociation between cognitive and affective empathy in AgCC. Likewise, atypical patterns of visual attention to faces corresponded with impaired emotion recognition in AgCC (Bridgman et al, 2014), suggesting that atypical visual attention in AgCC negatively impacts the ability to identify others’ emotions. This study used the Multifaceted Empathy Test [MET] (Foell et al., 2018) to examine the impact of visual aesthetics (photo composition) on empathetic feelings (affective empathy) and situational emotion recognition (cognitive empathy) in persons with AgCC. Both cognitive and affective empathy scores are typically higher on MET stimuli composed according to the “Golden Spiral” (Callaway, 2022).

Participants and Methods:

Results from 50 control participants recruited from Cloud Research were compared to responses from 19 participants with AgCC and normal-range FSIQ (>80). Data was gathered through an online version of the MET, which uses a series of photographs of individuals displaying an emotion, half of which adhere to the compositional technique known as “The Golden Spiral.” To measure cognitive empathy, the participants are asked to pick the correct emotion being displayed with three distractors for each item. To measure affective empathy, they are then asked on a sliding scale, “how much do you empathize with the person shown” (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much).

Results:

Repeated measures mixed ANOVAs revealed no difference between AgCC and control groups on affective empathy, and as expected on the MET, both groups had significantly higher ratings for photos composed according to the Golden Spiral (AgCC, np2 = .071; control, np2 = .136). In contrast, the AgCC group scored significantly lower than controls overall on cognitive empathy, np2 =.065. Exploratory post-hoc found a significant group difference in cognitive empathy only on photos composed according to the Golden Spiral, np2 = .090, with the scores in the AgCC group unimpacted by composition type while the control group exhibiting significantly higher scores Golden Spiral images, np2 = .254.

Conclusions:

Empathic deficits in AgCC were restricted to the cognitive component, while affective empathy was not impaired. Visual aesthetics of photo composition influenced affective empathy ratings in both AgCC and control groups. However, adults with AgCC had diminished ability to give cognitive labels to the emotional states of others, which was not enhanced by the formal aesthetics of stimuli. Thus the corpus callosum seems to facilitate the ability to cognitively label emotions by facilitating visual attention. It also suggests that the corpus callosum does not facilitate affective empathy, in part because it does not appear to determine whether formal aesthetics influences the processing of visual stimuli in AgCC or neurotypical controls.