Attraction is altered via modulation of the medial prefrontal cortex without explicit knowledge.

Samantha Zorns, Claudia Sierzputowski, Sydney Ash, Molly Skowron, Anthony Minervini, Adriana LaVarco, Matthew Pardillo, Julian Paul Keenan
Author Information
  1. Samantha Zorns: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  2. Claudia Sierzputowski: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  3. Sydney Ash: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  4. Molly Skowron: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  5. Anthony Minervini: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  6. Adriana LaVarco: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  7. Matthew Pardillo: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.
  8. Julian Paul Keenan: Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, United States.

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that brain stimulation can alter an individual's physical appearance via dysregulation of the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). In this study, we attempted to determine if individuals who receive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered to the MPFC were rated as more attractive by others. It has been previously reported that 1 hertz (Hz) (inhibitory) TMS can alter one's facial expressions such that frontal cortex inhibition can increase expressiveness. These alterations, detected by external observation, remain below the level of awareness of the subject itself. In Phase I, subjects ( = 10) received MPFC rTMS and had their photographs taken after each of the five stimulation conditions, in addition to making self-ratings across a number of variables, including attractiveness. In Phase II, participants ( = 430) rated five pictures of each of the Phase 1 individuals on attractiveness. It was found that there were no significant differences in self-assessment following rTMS (Phase I). However, attractiveness ratings differed significantly in Phase II. There was a significant difference found between 10 Hz TMS delivered to the MPFC ( < 0.001), such that individuals were rated as less attractive. Furthermore, 1 Hz TMS to the MPFC increased the number of 'Most Attractive' ratings, while 10Hz TMS decreased the number of 'Most Attractive' ratings ( < 0.001). These results suggest that the MPFC plays a role in attractiveness ratings to others. These data also support research showing that one's appearance can be altered below the level of awareness via rTMS. To our knowledge, this is the first investigation to examine how brain stimulation influences one's attractiveness.

Keywords

References

  1. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 May;19(5):776-98 [PMID: 17488204]
  2. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2015 Sep 1;60:163-172 [PMID: 26366010]
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov 08;119(45):e2206925119 [PMID: 36322750]
  4. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Sep;182(3):379-85 [PMID: 17607566]
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jun 5;115(23):6082-6087 [PMID: 29784814]
  6. Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;163:391-410 [PMID: 31590743]
  7. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jan 19;371(1686):20150077 [PMID: 26644596]
  8. Transl Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 10;10(1):393 [PMID: 33173042]
  9. Schizophr Res. 2010 Dec;124(1-3):91-100 [PMID: 20817483]
  10. Brain Stimul. 2021 Sep-Oct;14(5):1135-1146 [PMID: 34280583]
  11. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 May;111(5):800-5 [PMID: 10802449]
  12. Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Dec;1(4):268-76 [PMID: 24168380]
  13. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 Apr;89(2):120-30 [PMID: 7683602]
  14. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):992-998 [PMID: 21281653]
  15. Exp Brain Res. 2012 Nov;223(2):177-87 [PMID: 22965551]
  16. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Aug;50:100984 [PMID: 34246062]
  17. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2015 Mar;15(1):1-14 [PMID: 24984693]
  18. Front Neuroanat. 2022 Aug 23;16:936025 [PMID: 36081853]
  19. Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jun;50(7):1578-93 [PMID: 22450197]
  20. Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 14;13:896514 [PMID: 35774950]
  21. Int J Neurosci. 2021 Jul;131(7):701-707 [PMID: 32253949]
  22. Ind Psychiatry J. 2018 Jul-Dec;27(2):172-180 [PMID: 31359968]
  23. Behav Brain Res. 2016 Jun 1;306:52-63 [PMID: 26965571]
  24. Biology (Basel). 2023 Oct 25;12(11): [PMID: 37997965]
  25. J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Jun;89:125-135 [PMID: 28278422]
  26. Front Neurol. 2019 Jun 05;10:587 [PMID: 31275221]
  27. Front Neurosci. 2021 Oct 14;15:718847 [PMID: 34720856]
  28. Psychol Res. 2000;63(3-4):289-98 [PMID: 11004882]
  29. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Dec;120(12):2008-2039 [PMID: 19833552]
  30. Brain Sci. 2020 Aug 08;10(8): [PMID: 32784394]
  31. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 May;123(5):858-82 [PMID: 22349304]
  32. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Jun;17(2):451-6 [PMID: 18417363]
  33. J Vis Exp. 2022 Apr 20;(182): [PMID: 35532269]
  34. J Sex Med. 2012 Apr;9(4):1048-54 [PMID: 22353205]
  35. Neurosci Lett. 2019 Feb 6;693:1-2 [PMID: 30308235]
  36. Scand J Psychol. 2020 Aug;61(4):471-483 [PMID: 32157701]
  37. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Apr;7(4):411-6 [PMID: 15004563]
  38. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 May 1;12(5):707-717 [PMID: 28158864]
  39. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2003 Apr;14(2):283-301 [PMID: 12856495]
  40. Psychol Sci. 2022 Jun;33(6):906-924 [PMID: 35657777]
  41. Brain Sci. 2022 Aug 19;12(8): [PMID: 36009167]
  42. J Pers. 2020 Dec;88(6):1235-1251 [PMID: 32512622]
  43. Neurosci Lett. 2019 Feb 6;693:68-74 [PMID: 30473315]
  44. Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;163:73-92 [PMID: 31590749]
  45. Exp Brain Res. 2000 Aug;133(4):425-30 [PMID: 10985677]
  46. J Pain. 2016 Mar;17(3):383-91 [PMID: 26705973]
  47. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022 Jan;47(1):361-372 [PMID: 34272471]
  48. Med Sci Monit. 2013 May 10;19:353-8 [PMID: 23660852]
  49. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Jan;108(1):1-16 [PMID: 9474057]
  50. Psychol Med. 2020 Nov;50(15):2465-2486 [PMID: 33070785]
  51. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16875-9 [PMID: 16263934]
  52. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2022 Apr;54:101101 [PMID: 35338900]
  53. Evol Psychol. 2011 Apr 07;9(2):147-80 [PMID: 22947962]
  54. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2000 Oct;1(1):59-65 [PMID: 11252769]
  55. Transl Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 25;5:e625 [PMID: 26305476]
  56. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 Aug;130(8):1409-1416 [PMID: 31104898]
  57. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011 Sep;6(4):442-9 [PMID: 20587597]
  58. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1999 Jul 29;354(1387):1229-38 [PMID: 10466148]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0MPFCattractivenessrTMSTMSPhasestimulationcanratingsappearanceviacortexindividualsrated1Hzone'snumberbrainaltermedialprefrontaldeliveredattractiveotherslevelawareness=10fiveIIfoundsignificant<0001'MostAttractive'alteredknowledgePreviousstudiesdemonstratedindividual'sphysicaldysregulationstudyattempteddeterminereceiverepetitivetranscranialmagneticpreviouslyreportedhertzinhibitoryfacialexpressionsfrontalinhibitionincreaseexpressivenessalterationsdetectedexternalobservationremainsubjectsubjectsreceivedphotographstakenconditionsadditionmakingself-ratingsacrossvariablesincludingparticipants430picturesdifferencesself-assessmentfollowingHoweverdifferedsignificantlydifferencelessFurthermoreincreased10HzdecreasedresultssuggestplaysroledataalsosupportresearchshowingfirstinvestigationexamineinfluencesAttractionmodulationwithoutexplicit

Similar Articles

Cited By