Interacting brains revisited: A cross‐brain network neuroscience perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elucidating the neural basis of social behavior is a long-standing challenge in neuroscience. Such endeavors are driven by attempts to extend the isolated perspective on the human brain by considering interacting persons' brain activities, but a theoretical and computational framework for this purpose is still in its infancy. Here, we posit a comprehensive framework based on bipartite graphs for interbrain networks and address whether they provide meaningful insights into the neural underpinnings of social interactions. First, we show that the nodal density of such graphs exhibits nonrandom properties. While the current hyperscanning analyses mostly rely on global metrics, we encode the regions' roles via matrix decomposition to obtain an interpretable network representation yielding both global and local insights. With Bayesian modeling, we reveal how synchrony patterns seeded in specific brain regions contribute to global effects. Beyond inferential inquiries, we demonstrate that graph representations can be used to predict individual social characteristics, outperforming functional connectivity estimators for this purpose. In the future, this may provide a means of characterizing individual variations in social behavior or identifying biomarkers for social interaction and disorders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".