Arbitrary methodological decisions skew inter-brain synchronization estimates in hyperscanning-EEG studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, hyperscanning has emerged as an important methodology to study neural processes underlying human interaction using fMRI, EEG, fNIRS, and MEG. However, many methodological decisions regarding preprocessing and analysis of hyperscanning data have not yet been standardized in the hyperscanning community, yet may affect inter-brain estimates. Here, we systematically investigate the effects common methodological choices can have on estimates of phase-based inter-brain synchronization (IBS) measures, using real and simulated hyperscanning (dual) EEG data. Notably, we introduce a new method to compute circular correlation coefficients in IBS studies, which performs more reliably in comparison to the standard approach, showing that the conventional circular correlation implementation leads to large fluctuations in IBS estimates due to fluctuations in circular mean directions. Furthermore, we demonstrate how short epoch durations (of 1 s or less) can lead to inflated IBS estimates in scenarios with no strong underlying interaction. Finally, we show how signal-to-noise ratios and temporal factors may confound IBS estimates, particularly when comparing, for example, resting states with conditions involving motor actions. For each of these investigated effects, we provide recommendations for future research employing hyperscanning-EEG techniques, aimed at increasing validity and replicability of inter-brain synchronization studies.
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 | 0.037 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".