4.3 Review

Hyperscanning neuroimaging technique to reveal the two-in-one system in social interactions

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 25-32

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neures.2014.11.006

关键词

Social neuroscience; Social interaction; Hyperscanning

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [21220005, 23650224]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT) [22101007]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22101007, 26244031, 26350987, 23650224] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a technique for measuring brain activity simultaneously from two people, known as hyperscanning, we can calculate inter-brain neural effects that appear only in interactions between individuals. Hyperscanning studies using fMRI are advantageous in that they can precisely determine the region(s) involved in inter-brain effects. However, it is almost impossible to record inter-brain effects in daily life. By contrast, hyperscanning EEG studies have high temporal resolution and could be used to capture moment-to-moment interactions. In addition, EEG instrumentation is portable and easy to wear, offering the opportunity to record inter-brain effects during daily-life interactions. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it is difficult to localize the epicenter of the inter-brain effect. fNIRS has better temporal resolution and portability than fMRI, but has limited spatial resolution and a limited ability to record deep brain structures. Future studies should employ hyperscanning EEG-fMRI, because this approach combines the high temporal resolution of EEG with the high spatial resolution of fMRI. Hyperscanning EEG-fMRI allows us to use inter-brain effects as neuromarkers of the properties of social interactions in daily life. We also wish to emphasize the need to develop a mathematical model explaining how two brains can exhibit synchronized activity. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据