A two for one special: EEG hyperscanning using a single-person EEG recording setup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EEG hyperscanning refers to recording electroencephalographic (EEG) data from multiple participants simultaneously. Many hyperscanning experimental designs seek to mimic naturalistic behavior, relying on unpredictable participant-generated stimuli. The majority of this research has focused on neural oscillatory activity that is quantified over hundreds of milliseconds or more. This contrasts with traditional event-related potential (ERP) research in which analysis focuses on transient responses, often only tens of milliseconds in duration. Deriving ERPs requires precise time-locking between stimuli and EEG recordings, and thus typically relies on pre-set stimuli that are presented to participants by a system that controls stimulus timing and synchronization with an EEG system. EEG hyperscanning methods typically use separate EEG amplifiers for each participant, increasing cost and complexity - including challenges in synchronizing data between systems. Here, we describe a method that allows for simultaneous acquisition of EEG data from a pair of participants engaged in conversation, using a single EEG system with simultaneous audio data collection that is synchronized with the EEG recording. This allows for the post-hoc insertion of trigger codes so that it is possible to analyze ERPs time-locked to specific events. We further demonstrate methods for deriving ERPs elicited by another person's spontaneous speech, using this setup.•EEG hyperscanning method using a single EEG amplifier•EEG hyperscanning method allowing simultaneous recording of audio data directly into the EEG data file for perfect synchronization•EEG method for naturalistic language and human interaction studies that allows the study of event-related potentials time-locked to spontaneous speech.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.013 |
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".