Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25489093›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Cerebral coherence between communicators marks the emergence of meaning.

Arjen Stolk, Matthijs L Noordzij, Lennart Verhagen, Inge Volman, Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen, Robert Oostenveld, Peter Hagoort, Ivan Toni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Layers of Social Meaning: Innate, Acquired, and Deliberative Levels of Referential Signal Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Synchrony Across Brains.Annual review of psychology · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Emerging Science of Interacting Minds.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Long gaps between turns are awkward for strangers but not for friends.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Arjen StolkDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; a.stolk@donders.ru.nl.
Matthijs L NoordzijDepartment of Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics, University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands;
Lennart VerhagenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, OX1 3UD Oxford, United Kingdom;
Inge VolmanDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands; and.
Jan-Mathijs SchoffelenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Robert OostenveldDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
Peter HagoortDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ivan ToniDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How can we understand each other during communicative interactions? An influential suggestion holds that communicators are primed by each other's behaviors, with associative mechanisms automatically coordinating the production of communicative signals and the comprehension of their meanings. An alternative suggestion posits that mutual understanding requires shared conceptualizations of a signal's use, i.e., "conceptual pacts" that are abstracted away from specific experiences. Both accounts predict coherent neural dynamics across communicators, aligned either to the occurrence of a signal or to the dynamics of conceptual pacts. Using coherence spectral-density analysis of cerebral activity simultaneously measured in pairs of communicators, this study shows that establishing mutual understanding of novel signals synchronizes cerebral dynamics across communicators' right temporal lobes. This interpersonal cerebral coherence occurred only within pairs with a shared communicative history, and at temporal scales independent from signals' occurrences. These findings favor the notion that meaning emerges from shared conceptualizations of a signal's use.

Indexed as

CommunicationAdolescentAdultBehaviorBrainBrain MappingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleYoung Adultconceptual knowledgedual functional magnetic resonance imagingexperimental semioticssocial interactiontheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID25489093
PMCPMC4280639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.