HyPyP: a Hyperscanning Python Pipeline for inter-brain connectivity analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bulk of social neuroscience takes a 'stimulus-brain' approach, typically comparing brain responses to different types of social stimuli, but most of the time in the absence of direct social interaction. Over the last two decades, a growing number of researchers have adopted a 'brain-to-brain' approach, exploring similarities between brain patterns across participants as a novel way to gain insight into the social brain. This methodological shift has facilitated the introduction of naturalistic social stimuli into the study design (e.g. movies) and, crucially, has spurred the development of new tools to directly study social interaction, both in controlled experimental settings and in more ecologically valid environments. Specifically, 'hyperscanning' setups, which allow the simultaneous recording of brain activity from two or more individuals during social tasks, has gained popularity in recent years. However, currently, there is no agreed-upon approach to carry out such 'inter-brain connectivity analysis', resulting in a scattered landscape of analysis techniques. To accommodate a growing demand to standardize analysis approaches in this fast-growing research field, we have developed Hyperscanning Python Pipeline, a comprehensive and easy open-source software package that allows (social) neuroscientists to carry-out and to interpret inter-brain connectivity analyses.
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.
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 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it