Respiratory synchrony and individual differences causally influence dyadic interpersonal coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human interpersonal coordination can yield synchronization at multiple timescales, including behavioral (auditory-motor) and physiological (respiratory and cardiac) levels; yet the causal relationship among these levels is poorly understood. By comparing dyadic melody perception and production, we demonstrate that physiological synchrony is not merely a byproduct of shared perception, as it increases significantly during joint production relative to joint perception or to silence. Perturbing dyads’ behavior or respiration revealed distinct causal effects: respiratory perturbations impaired both dyadic respiratory and behavioral synchrony, whereas auditory-motor perturbations disrupted only dyadic behavioral synchrony. Individual differences further shaped synchrony: partners who shared similar spontaneous rates achieved better behavioral synchrony, and partners with more similar resting heart rates exhibited stronger cardiac synchrony in joint production. These findings disentangle the relationships among levels of human synchrony, reveal directional entrainment processes between respiratory and behavioral synchrony, and highlight the pivotal role of individual differences in interpersonal coordination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".