Read on Twitter
delighted to announce that I have a new paper out: Hyperscanning - beyond the hype https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627320308862?dgcid=author
This builds on the ideas in my preprint https://psyarxiv.com/rc9wp/ and examines the basic question - if we do a hyperscanning study, what the */#$ does the data actually mean?
two people in a #fnirs hyperscanning study show similar brain patterns, but is this just due to the fact that they share a common environment?
Or is there more to it? To answer the Q, we need to understand 2 things. First, the two people are *embodied* - their social interaction is mediated by their bodies and eyes and ears - the physical implementations of their social interaction.
so to understand brain interactions, we need to track & understand bodily interactions.
Second, in order to interact smoothly, the two people must predict each other's actions. And this mutual prediction *causes* coherent hyperscanning signals, as shown in a beautiful study from Kingsbury et al
so to understand hyperscanning, we need to understand patterns of prediction and action in individual brains which are embedded in interacting bodies.
And these new papers from @rcanigueral and @PaolaPinti start to do this http://www.antoniahamilton.com/Canigueral_NeuroImage_2020.pdf
http://www.antoniahamilton.com/Pinti_SCAN_2020.pdf
http://www.antoniahamilton.com/Pinti_SCAN_2020.pdf
