A practical guide to EEG hyperscanning in joint action research: from motivation to implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments in cognitive neuroscience have led to the emergence of hyperscanning, the simultaneous measurement of brain activity from multiple people. Hyperscanning is useful for investigating social cognition, including joint action, because of its ability to capture neural processes that occur within and between people as they coordinate actions toward a shared goal. Here, we provide a practical guide for researchers considering using hyperscanning to study joint action and seeking to avoid frequently raised concerns from hyperscanning skeptics. We focus specifically on Electroencephalography (EEG) hyperscanning, which is widely available and optimally suited for capturing fine-grained temporal dynamics of action coordination. Our guidelines cover questions that are likely to arise when planning a hyperscanning project, ranging from whether hyperscanning is appropriate for answering one's research questions to considerations for study design, dependent variable selection, data analysis and visualization. By following clear guidelines that facilitate careful consideration of the theoretical implications of research design choices and other methodological decisions, joint action researchers can mitigate interpretability issues and maximize the benefits of hyperscanning paradigms.
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 | 0.031 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.043 |
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".