ArticlePloS one2025
Psychophysiological correlates of science communicators.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a study in an ecological setting to evaluate the heart rate variability (HRV) of expert communicators during a live national primetime video interview. The study involved 32 expert science communicators, all with mid- to long-term experience in public speaking and outreach work, who were evaluated by an external jury to assess their communication skills. Prior to the experiment, participants completed an online survey to gather socio-demographic data, work-related information, and psychological profiles. The six indices of communication abilities assessed by jury were: Interest, Agreement, Engagement, Authoritativeness learning, and Clarity. HRV acquisitions were divided into three phases: baseline pre-interview, during the interview, and another baseline recording after the interview. Science communicators were characterized by high levels of self-esteem and prosociality, which were positively correlated with communication indices and inversely correlated with age. Evaluation of physiological responses showed that the total power and low-frequency components of HRV were significantly higher in the post-interview phase compared to both the interview and pre-interview phases. However, when we divided the entire group according to high and low Authoritativeness and Clarity indices, significant interactive effects were detected. Indeed, for the low Authoritativeness and Clarity subgroups, significant differences among all phases were observed, with total power decreasing from the pre-interview to the interview phase and increasing in the post-interview phase. This indicates a clear pattern of stress response and recovery. In contrast, the high Authoritativeness and Clarity subgroup showed less variation across phases, suggesting better stress regulation or less perceived stress during the interview. We provided the psychophysiological basis of science communication expertise that can affect the control of stress regulation during public speaking.
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.