Table 2.

Summary of the main results.

		P2	N2-N3	P3
Main effects	Facial Expression	Yes - at both FC and CP pools and at both hemispheres, max p = 0.013, ηp2 = 0.331. Painful facial expressions elicited more positive P2 than neutral expressions.	Yes, p = 0.000017, ηp2 = 0.696. Painful facial expressions elicited more positive N2–N3 than neutral expressions.	Yes - confined to the CP pool, p = 0.034, ηp2 = 0.253, and to the right FC pool (see [1] and [3] in “Interactions” row). *Unexpected result: painful facial expressions elicited larger P3 than neutral faces.
	Intelligibility	Yes - confined to the CP pool, max p = 0.017, ηp2 = 0.305. Larger P2 for utterances in mother-tongue than those in a fictionallanguage. Further qualified by the three-way interaction (see “Interactions” row).	No, p > 0.05	Yes - at both FC and CP pools, max p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.364. Intelligible utterances elicited larger P3 than utterances in a fictional language. Further qualified by the two-way interaction (see [2] “Interactions” row).
	Prosody	No, p > 0.05	No, p > 0.05	No, p > 0.05
Interactions		[1] At FC: Facial expression x Intelligibility x Prosody, max p = 0.048, ηp2 = 0.224. Further qualified by separate ANOVA for each level of Prosody (see [1] in the bottom panel). [2] At CP: Intelligibility x Prosody x Hemisphere p = 0.030, ηp2 = 0.263.	Facial expression x Prosody, p = 0.014, ηp2 = 0.321. Further qualified by post-hoc comparisons (see [3] in the bottom panel).	[1] At FC: Hemisphere x Facial expression, p = 0.025, ηp2 = 0.276. Further qualified by post-hoc comparisons (see [3] in the bottom panel).[2] At CP: Intelligibility x Prosody, max p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.397. Further qualified by post-hoc comparisons (see [4] in the bottom panel).
		Separate ANOVA for Painful Prosody: [1] At FC: Facial expression p = 0.012, ηp2 = 0.335. [1] At FC: Facial expression x Intelligibility p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.389. Painful faces elicited larger P2 than neutral faces when preceded by utterances with a painful prosody in a fictional language. [2] At CP: Intelligibility p = 0.036, ηp2 = 0.335. Faces that were preceded by intelligible utterances with painful prosody elicited larger P2 than faces preceded by utterances in a fictional language with painful prosody. Separate ANOVA for Neutral Prosody n.s. (p > 0.1).	[3] Planned comparisons: Neutral facial expressions preceded by painful prosody elicited more negative N2−N3 (reduced empathic response) when compared to neutral faces preceded by neutral prosody, p = 0.008. Painful facial expressions preceded by painful prosody elicited more positive N2–N3 (larger empathic reaction) when compared to neutral faces preceded by neutral prosody, p = 0.002. Painful facial expressions preceded by neutral prosody did elicit an N2−N3 empathic reaction relative to neutral faces preceded by neutral prosody, p = 0.017.	[3] Planned comparisons: Painful facial expressions elicited larger P3 than neutral facial expressions at right FC, p = 0.033, but not at left FC, p > 0.05.[4] Planned comparisons: Intelligible utterances pronounced with painful prosody elicited larger P3 than those pronounced with neutral prosody, p = 0.043. P3 for unintelligible utterances pronounced with painful prosody decreased relative to neutral prosody, p = 0.021.