ArticleScientific reports2025
Synchronization of brain activity associated with eye contact: comparison of face-to-face and online communication.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing design students' inter-brain synchrony between face-to-face and online collaborations.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Towards naturalistic social neuroscience: A multi-level framework integrating real-world phenotyping, neurobiology, and computational mechanisms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Embodied metaphors and interpersonal synchrony in the digital age: the case of remote working.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online meetings have become increasingly prevalent, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Although they offer convenience and effectiveness in various contexts, there is a pertinent question about whether they truly replicate the richness of in-person communication. This study delves into the distinctions between online and face-to-face interactions, with a particular focus on the synchronization of brain activity. Previous research has indicated a connection between synchronization and the quality of communication. Therefore, our hypothesis posits that face-to-face interactions lead to greater brain synchronization compared to online interactions, which often lack certain social cues. To investigate this, we conducted a study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy hyperscanning during an eye-contact task involving 28 male participants organized into 14 pairs. We assessed brain signal synchronization using wavelet coherence analysis. After comparing face-to-face and online conditions, our findings revealed significantly higher synchronization in face-to-face scenarios, particularly within the right temporoparietal region. These results align with the outcomes of other hyperscanning studies and suggest that face-to-face communication elicits a higher level of brain synchronization compared with online communication. In the future, this approach holds promise for evaluating the effectiveness of online meeting tools in achieving a more authentic virtual communication experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.