Commentary: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Tracks Real-World Dynamic Group Interactions in the Classroom and Cognitive Neuroscience: Synchronizing Brains in the Classroom

Francisco J. Parada; Alejandra Rossi

摘要

Earlier this year, Dikker et al. ( 2017 ) published a research report opening an important new chapter in the ongoing dialogue between Neuroscience and Education, namely, the possibility of successfully acquiring and analyzing diachronic human neurophysiological data during semi-structured, real-world classroom interactions using low-cost data-acquisition technologies. Taken as disciplinary work [i.e. hyperscanning (e.g., Astolfi et al., 2010 ) or neuroeducational (e.g., Mercier and Charland, 2013 ) studies], the article surely deserves praise; however, as noted by Bhattacharya ( 2017 ) it also signifies a milestone for the entire field of Cognitive Neuroscience as it represents a big step in settling a paradigm shift, which has been slowly gaining grounds in our discipline. Given the excitement that the concept of a “paradigm shift” can bring out along with the new research avenues that low-cost technologies offer, in this commentary we offer a perspective about the challenges and implications of the ever-increasing possibility of studying cognition in its “natural state.”Social Neuroscience is an exciting new field that has provided in-depth insights, expanded the range of topics, and added an unprecedented layer of complexity to the understanding of the neural basis of human behavior. Thanks to this multidisciplinary effort, researchers interested in the neural basis of human behavior have explored not only how traditionally-conceptualized “lower-level” and “higher-level” cognitive processes relate to specific brain structures or concerted neural dynamics, but also have turned to explore how the brain supports other mental processes that are key in the interaction between individuals. However, the field still presents some important limitations at the theoretical and methodological levels. Most social cognition studies investigate behavior and concomitant brain activity of isolated individuals while exposed to stimuli of social relevance (e.g., facial and/or bodily gestures as in Thompson et al., 2007 ), social nature (e.g., facial expression of emotions as in Vuilleumier and Pourtois, 2007 ), or immerse in a social context (e.g., increased number of individuals within the stimuli as in Akitsuki and Decety, 2009 ; Puce et al., 2013 ) without actually involving a real interaction with another person (i.e., simulated interactions as in Caruana et al., 2016 ). These approaches are commonly referred to as “one-person-neuroscience.” Most experiments use experimental paradigms probing “offline” social cognition, where isolated participants have to think about other people's mental states while being detached from a real social interaction (Pfeiffer et al., 2013 ).Without a doubt, these approaches have advanced the field tremendously, but have also limited the exploration of real life social cognition; when information is diachronically and mutually exchanged within an appropriate temporal frame between individuals. It is within this context that it has been suggested that in order to further develop social neuroscience as a field and gain more knowledge about the neural basis of social interaction, researchers should move toward quantifying the interpersonal co-regulated coupling between interacting partners (Goldman and de Vignemont, 2009 ), while they mutually and continuously affect one another (Varela et al., 1991 ; Clark, 2008 , 2013 ), either by mutual coordination or cooperation (Konvalinka and Roepstorff, 2012 ). The work by Dikker et al. ( 2017 ) embodies the aforementioned spirit.Thus, in order to better study the neural basis of situated and embodied social interaction, we suggest that each study contributing to the referred paradigmatic shift should be evaluated ( a priori or a posteriori ) considering two main challenges depicted in Figure 1 : The theoretical need of developing a coherent framework for interpreting results and mapping the whole spectrum of relations between personal, social, and neural dynamics. The methodological need , referring to the relationship between the ever-improving data-acquisition technologies and the actual usage plausibility of such technologies at a single-subject and/or group level. The latter can be further divided into a technical requirement of developing novel experimental setups to observe and measure interactions between two or more people and an analytical requirement of generating novel analysis procedures to quantify mutual interactions. Figure 1 When studying the embodied nature of social cognition, regardless of how close or far away a research design is from “synthetic laboratory settings,” it must consider theoretical and methodological needs. Although the field has been energetically revisiting and discussing about the theoretical need (e.g., Konvalinka and Roepstorff, 2012 ; De Jaegher et al., 2016 ; Krakauer et al., 2017 ), at this early stage, it is important to avoid the idea that the methodological need can be considered a “won battle” thanks t

机译：今年初，Dikker等人。（2017）发表了一份研究报告，开启了神经科学与教育之间正在进行的对话的一个重要的新篇章，即使用低成本数据在半结构化，真实世界的课堂互动中成功获取和分析历时人类神经生理学数据的可能性，采集技术。作为纪律工作[即超扫描（例如Astolfi等，2010）或神经教育（例如Mercier和Charland，2013）研究]，该文章无疑值得赞扬;然而，正如Bhattacharya（2017）所指出的那样，它也标志着整个认知神经科学领域的一个里程碑，因为它代表着解决范式转变的重要一步，而这种转变已在我们的学科中慢慢获得了发展。鉴于“范式转变”的概念可以与低成本技术提供的新研究途径一起出现而令人兴奋，在这篇评论中，我们提供了一种观点，说明了研究认知能力不断提高的可能性和挑战。社会神经科学是一个令人兴奋的新领域，它提供了深入的见解，扩展了主题范围，并为理解人类行为的神经基础增加了前所未有的复杂性。由于这项多学科的努力，对人类行为的神经基础感兴趣的研究人员不仅探索了传统概念化的“低级”和“高级”认知过程如何与特定的大脑结构或协调的神经动力学联系起来，而且还发现了探索大脑如何支持其他心理过程，这些过程是个体之间相互作用的关键。但是，该领域在理论和方法论层面仍然存在一些重要的局限性。大多数社会认知研究都是在受到社会相关刺激（例如，如汤普森等人，2007年的面部和/或身体手势），社会性质（例如，情绪中的面部表情）的刺激下，对孤立个体的行为和伴随的大脑活动进行调查Vuilleumier和Pourtois，2007年），或沉浸在社交环境中（例如，如Akitsuki和Decety，2009年; Puce等人，2013年，在刺激中增加个体的数量），而实际上并未涉及与另一个人的真正互动（即，像Caruana等人（2016）那样模拟互动。这些方法通常称为“单人神经科学”。大多数实验使用探索“离线”社会认知的实验范式，其中孤立的参与者必须在与真正的社会互动分离的同时思考他人的心理状态（Pfeiffer等，2013）。毫无疑问，这些方法已经推动了这一领域的发展。极大地影响了现实生活中的社会认知;当信息在个人之间的适当时间框架内进行历时性和相互交换时。在这种情况下，有人建议为了进一步发展社会神经科学作为一个领域并获得更多关于社会互动的神经基础的知识，研究人员应着手量化互动伙伴之间的人际共调控耦合（Goldman和de Vignemont，2009），尽管它们通过相互协调或合作而相互持续影响（Varela等，1991; Clark，2008，2013）（Konvalinka和Roepstorff，2012）。 Dikker等人的工作。（2017）体现了上述精神，因此，为了更好地研究处境和体现的社会互动的神经基础，我们建议应考虑两个主要挑战，评估有助于上述范式转变的每项研究（先验或后验）图1中描绘了一个理论需求：开发一个连贯的框架来解释结果并绘制个人，社会和神经动力学之间关系的整个范围。方法学上的需求，指的是不断改进的数据采集技术与此类技术在单个主题和/或组级别上的合理使用之间的关系。后者可以进一步分为开发新颖的实验装置以观察和测量两个或更多人之间的交互的技术要求和生成新颖的分析程序以量化相互交互的分析要求。图1在研究社会认知的内在本质时，无论研究设计与“综合实验室环境”有多远，都必须考虑理论和方法上的需求。尽管该领域一直在大力回顾和讨论理论需求（例如Konvalinka和Roepstorff，2012; De Jaegher等人，2016; Krakauer等人，2017），但在这一早期阶段，重要的是避免这种想法方法论上的需要可以被认为是一场“胜利之战”

Commentary: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Tracks Real-World Dynamic Group Interactions in the Classroom and Cognitive Neuroscience: Synchronizing Brains in the Classroom

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅