ArticleBrain sciences2026
fNIRS Hyperscanning of Negotiation: The Role of Personality and Neural Synchronization.
Article in Brain sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making is often a shared and collective process, facilitated by negotiation dynamics. This study adopted fNIRS hyperscanning to explore similar brain hemodynamic responses during naturalistic negotiation and decision-making interactions and the role of individual differences.
methodsHomologous dyads of speaker A and speaker B engaged in a realistic negotiation task, deciding how to handle a non-conforming team member. The task included three steps: the Individual step (Indstep), where the participants individually selected how to decide; the Cooperation step (Coopstep), involving collaborative negotiation; and the Agreement step (Agrstep), where a mutual agreement was reached. General Decision-Making Style (GDMS), Maximization Scale (MS) and Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) were also administered.
resultsHigher deoxygenated hemoglobin (HHb) dissimilarity emerged when speaker B was speaking and speaker A was listening, suggesting that the members exhibited differences in the level of cognitive demand required for the conversation, or that speaker A was attempting to assert his perspective. Moreover, the avoidant decision-making style, the alternative-search tendency, and the decision-making difficulties subscales negatively correlated with HHb dissimilarity in the left hemisphere during the Agrstep, as well as the extraversion trait during the Indstep and the Coopstep, highlighting how individual differences modulate the neural mechanisms underlying negotiation.
conclusionsThese findings reveal that brain patterns of neural similarity in negotiation contexts are sensitive to both conversational roles and individual decision-making profiles. Integrating a hyperscanning paradigm with psychological assessment offers interesting insights into the neurocognitive foundations of cooperation, revealing the influence of cognitive and personality traits on neural activity associated with the naturalistic negotiation process.
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.