2019
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/xgh8e
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpersonal neural entrainment during early social interaction

Abstract: Currently, we understand much about how children’s brains attend to and learn from information presented while they are alone, viewing a screen – but less about how interpersonal social influences are substantiated in the brain. Here, we consider research that examines how social behaviors affect not one, but both partners in a dyad. We review studies that measured interpersonal neural entrainment, considering two ways of measuring entrainment: concurrent entrainment (e.g. ‘when A is high, B is high’ – also kn… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, the studies reviewed above document the role of emergent coordination mechanisms in supporting very simple forms of joint action that typically involve agents who perform very similar actions at the same time (e.g., tap in synchrony to the same beat, imitate each other's motion or emotional displays, etc.). A large literature has documented the pervasiveness of these mechanisms, at the behavioral, physiological, and neural levels, and the role they play in coordination from infancy to adulthood (Helm, Miller, Kahle, Troxel, & Hastings, 2018; Wass, Whitehorn, Marriott Haresign, Phillips, & Leong, 2020). Yet how they could account for complex forms of collective improvisations, where each agent has to perform a different type of action, and where no temporal structure is present to support mechanisms such as entrainment, is really unclear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the studies reviewed above document the role of emergent coordination mechanisms in supporting very simple forms of joint action that typically involve agents who perform very similar actions at the same time (e.g., tap in synchrony to the same beat, imitate each other's motion or emotional displays, etc.). A large literature has documented the pervasiveness of these mechanisms, at the behavioral, physiological, and neural levels, and the role they play in coordination from infancy to adulthood (Helm, Miller, Kahle, Troxel, & Hastings, 2018; Wass, Whitehorn, Marriott Haresign, Phillips, & Leong, 2020). Yet how they could account for complex forms of collective improvisations, where each agent has to perform a different type of action, and where no temporal structure is present to support mechanisms such as entrainment, is really unclear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first possibility is that aspects of INS may reflect shared social cognitive and attentional processes, including processes of mutual prediction and adaptation 31 , and the exchange of social ostensive signals 11,32 . In line thereof, we found that dyads adapted their response times based on feedback more strongly during cooperation than during competition (Supplementary Text 6, Supplementary Table 6).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, it is designed for event-locked paradigms with a repeated stimulus and is not able to incorporate continuous EEG data, such as the non-event locked paradigms, which are frequently used to study neural entrainment in parent-infant interactions (Wass et al, 2020).…”
Section: Lossless Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three of the five categories it sorts ICA-components into are related to ocular motor activity. Second, it is designed for event-locked paradigms with a repeated stimulus and is not able to incorporate continuous EEG data, such as the non-event locked paradigms, which are frequently used to study neural entrainment in parent-infant interactions (Wass et al, 2020). Third, validations of the system focused on the percentage of trials rejected, which further emphasises its suitability only for trial-based, pre-epoched data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%