Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28457867›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2017

Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Tracks Real-World Dynamic Group Interactions in the Classroom.

Suzanne Dikker, Lu Wan, Ido Davidesco, Lisa Kaggen, Matthias Oostrik, James McClintock, Jess Rowland, Georgios Michalareas, Jay J Van Bavel, Mingzhou Ding and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 283 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
283citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

283 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

223 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Suzanne DikkerDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA; Department of Language and Communication, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: sdikker@gmail.com.
Lu WanJ. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, 1275 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Ido DavidescoDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Lisa KaggenDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Matthias OostrikLeidekkerssteeg 1, 1012 GH Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
James McClintockNew York, NY 10024, USA.
Jess RowlandDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Georgios MichalareasMax Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Jay J Van BavelDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Mingzhou DingJ. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, 1275 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
David PoeppelDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA; Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: david.poeppel@gmail.com.

Funding

Cortical Mechanisms in Speech Perception: MEG StudiesR01DC005660 · NIDCD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI POEPPEL, DAVID E · 2002 to 2018
$7.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human brain has evolved for group living [1]. Yet we know so little about how it supports dynamic group interactions that the study of real-world social exchanges has been dubbed the "dark matter of social neuroscience" [2]. Recently, various studies have begun to approach this question by comparing brain responses of multiple individuals during a variety of (semi-naturalistic) tasks [3-15]. These experiments reveal how stimulus properties [13], individual differences [14], and contextual factors [15] may underpin similarities and differences in neural activity across people. However, most studies to date suffer from various limitations: they often lack direct face-to-face interaction between participants, are typically limited to dyads, do not investigate social dynamics across time, and, crucially, they rarely study social behavior under naturalistic circumstances. Here we extend such experimentation drastically, beyond dyads and beyond laboratory walls, to identify neural markers of group engagement during dynamic real-world group interactions. We used portable electroencephalogram (EEG) to simultaneously record brain activity from a class of 12 high school students over the course of a semester (11 classes) during regular classroom activities (Figures 1A-1C; Supplemental Experimental Procedures, section S1). A novel analysis technique to assess group-based neural coherence demonstrates that the extent to which brain activity is synchronized across students predicts both student class engagement and social dynamics. This suggests that brain-to-brain synchrony is a possible neural marker for dynamic social interactions, likely driven by shared attention mechanisms. This study validates a promising new method to investigate the neuroscience of group interactions in ecologically natural settings.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsSchoolsSocial BehaviorBrainElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMalebrain synchronyclassroom engagementeducational neurosciencegroup affinityhyper-scanningoscillationsportable EEGreal-world experimentationsocial neuroscience

Identifiers

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.