ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Dyadic Neural Synchronization: Differences between Offline and Computer-assisted Online Verbal Interaction.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing design students' inter-brain synchrony between face-to-face and online collaborations.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Dyadic Neural Synchronization: Differences between Offline and Computer-assisted Online Verbal Interaction.Human brain mapping · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computer-assisted online interaction (CAOI) has become predominant in daily life and is increasingly supplanting offline verbal interaction (FVI). Previous research has shown that face-to-face verbal interaction (VI) exhibits significant differences in interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) compared to computer-assisted online VI. However, the differences between various forms of FVI and CAOI remain unclear. In this work, we designed different forms of naturalistic VI tasks between dual persons and adopted electroencephalography (EEG) hyperscanning to simultaneously record neural activities from both participants. The experiment included three conditions: online versus offline, with versus without feedback, with versus without visual information or eye contact. Thirty-one pairs of labmates with ordinary levels of intimacy were recruited as subjects. To analyze the impacts of these VI forms on INS, we calculated intersubject correlation at both scalp and cortex levels and constructed brain-to-brain networks based on intersubject functional connectivity using the phase lag index at the scalp level and the phase locking value at the cortex level. We found that interactions with feedback exhibit higher synchronization than interactions without feedback. VIs with visual information or eye contact are more effective in eliciting stronger INS. Additionally, compared to FVI, CAOI exhibits weakened neural synchronization. Intriguingly, online text-based interaction also results in high neural coupling. Our study reveals significant differences in various CAOIs and FVIs concerning typical factors, providing crucial insights into the mechanisms of INS during online interactions.
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.