Sensory multi-brain stimulation enhances dyadic cooperative behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperscanning research suggests that interbrain synchronization supports the regulation of social behavior. However, the evidence is predominantly correlational, leaving a gap for epiphenomenal accounts, where synchrony merely represents concurrent stimulus processing rather than a mechanism relevant to interpersonal interactions. Here, we demonstrate that interbrain synchrony causally drives cooperative success, as evidenced by non-invasive stimulation enhancing coupling and subsequently improving performance in a concurrent interdependent cooperation task. We applied dual-sensory entrainment at 16 Hz and 40 Hz to dyads and compared their performance with non-entrained control dyads performing the same cooperation task. We found that dual stimulation improved interbrain synchrony at the targeted frequencies relative to controls, with 16 Hz entrainment producing the most prominent effect. Strikingly, sensory entrainment facilitated sustained behavioral coupling, allowing partners to maintain coordination over extended periods. Notably, these effects are contingent on improved response coordination, indicating the importance of interbrain coupling for facilitating coordination and demonstrating causally that partner neural attunement is necessary to produce effective joint behavior. Thus, our study supports the concept that interbrain synchrony represents a neural mechanism with functional specificity in social interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".