Role-Specific Brain Activations in Leaders and Followers During Joint Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of social interaction in human life requires that individuals perform different roles during joint actions, the most basic distinction being that between a leader and a follower. A number of neuroimaging studies have examined the brain networks for leading and following, but none have examined what effect prior expertise at these roles has on brain activations during joint motor tasks. Couple dancers (e.g., dancers of Tango, Salsa, and swing) are an ideal population in which examine such effects, since leaders and followers of partnered dances have similar overall levels of motor expertise at dancing, but can differ strikingly in their role-specific skill sets. To explore role-specific expertise effects on brain activations for the first time, we recruited nine skilled leaders and nine skilled followers of couple dances for a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. We employed a two-person scanning arrangement that allowed a more naturalistic interaction between two individuals. The dancers interacted physically with an experimenter standing next to the bore of the magnet so as to permit bimanual partnered movements. Together, they alternated between leading and following the joint movements. The results demonstrated that the brain activations during the acts of leading and following were enhanced by prior expertise at being a leader or follower, and that activity in task-specific brain areas tended to be positively correlated with the level of expertise at the corresponding role. These findings provide preliminary evidence that training at one role of a joint motor task can selectively enhance role-related brain activations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".