ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2026
Interpersonal brain synchronization at frontopolar cortices underlies better advice-taking in groups.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We often seek advice from others outside our groups to optimize decision-making. This process may involve discerning the reliability of others, that is, whether the advice others provide is reliable enough to accept. However, little is known about how people collectively take advice from others. In this study, we recruited participant dyads (n = 35) to perform an advice-taking task, where they took advice collectively or individually from unreliable or reliable others. Interpersonal brain synchronization (IBS) was examined using a functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based hyperscanning technique. For advice from unreliable others, the dyads performed better than the individuals. The dyads demonstrated a higher learning rate for bad advice than for good advice, as indicated by the analysis of the Bayesian reinforcement learning model. Furthermore, they demonstrated enhanced IBS in the frontopolar cortex, which was positively correlated with learning rates and dyad performance. However, these findings did not apply to reliable others or individuals. This study shows that groups, compared to individuals, are better able to discern valuable advice from others, which may be associated with neural coupling between members. This suggests a cognitive-brain mechanism for group advice-taking.
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.