Predicting conversational satisfaction of face-to-face conversation through interpersonal similarity in resting-state functional connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When conversing with an unacquainted person, if it goes well, we can obtain much satisfaction (referred to as conversational satisfaction). Can we predict how satisfied dyads will be with face-to-face conversation? To this end, we employed interpersonal similarity in whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC), measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging before dyadic conversation. We investigated whether conversational satisfaction could be predicted from interpersonal similarity in RSFC using multivariate pattern analysis. Consequently, prediction was successful, suggesting that interpersonal similarity in RSFC is an effective neural biomarker predicting how much face-to-face conversation goes well. Furthermore, regression coefficients from predictive models suggest that both interpersonal similarity and dissimilarity contribute to good interpersonal relationships in terms of brain activity. The present study provides the potential of an interpersonal similarity approach using RSFC for understanding the foundations of human relationships and new neuroscientific insight into whether success in human interactions is predetermined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".