Imitation learning and co-presence learning influence the acquisition of word formation rules: A fNIRS hyperscanning study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imitation learning and co-presence learning are common forms of social learning. However, the effects of these two types of learning on acquiring word formation rules have gone relatively underexplored, particularly in the context of adult social learning. The current study uses functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) hyperscanning techniques to record the cognitive neural mechanisms of acquiring word formation rules during imitation learning and co-presence learning among dyads of 120 healthy adults. The experiment was a 2 (word learning type: within-subjects, easy word formation rules vs. difficult word formation rules) × 2 (social learning type: between-subjects, imitation learning vs. co-presence learning) mixed design. We used FDR correction to control for false positive rates. Co-presence learning enhanced interbrain synchronization and representation similarity among co-learners in the left middle frontal gyrus. In contrast, imitation learning increased interbrain synchronization in the right superior frontal gyrus, with Granger causality analysis indicating a unidirectional flow of neural activity from the imitator to the demonstrator. These findings suggest that there are distinct neural mechanisms underlying imitation learning and co-presence learning.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".