Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 10;6(1):832.
doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-05197-z.

Shared intentionality modulates interpersonal neural synchronization at the establishment of communication system

Jieqiong Liu  1   2 , Ruqian Zhang  1 , Enhui Xie  1 , Yixuan Lin  1 , Danni Chen  1 , Yang Liu  1 , Keshuang Li  1 , Mei Chen  1 , Yangzhuo Li  1 , Guanghai Wang  3 , Xianchun Li  4
Affiliations

Shared intentionality modulates interpersonal neural synchronization at the establishment of communication system

Jieqiong Liu et al. Commun Biol. .

Abstract

Whether and how shared intentionality (SI) influences the establishment of a novel interpersonal communication system is poorly understood. To investigate this issue, we designed a coordinating symbolic communication game (CSCG) and applied behavioral, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)-based hyperscanning, and hyper-transcranial alternating current stimulation (hyper-tACS) methods. Here we show that SI is a strong contributor to communicative accuracy. Moreover, SI, communicative accuracy, and interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) in the right superior temporal gyrus (rSTG) are higher when dyads successfully establish a novel communication system. Furthermore, the SI influences communicative accuracy by increasing INS. Additionally, using time series and long short-term memory neural network analyses, we find that the INS can predict communicative accuracy at the early formation stage of the communication system. Importantly, the INS partially mediates the relationship between the SI and the communicative accuracy only at the formation stage of the communication system. In contrast, when the communication system is established, SI and INS no longer contribute to communicative accuracy. Finally, the hyper-tACS experiment confirms that INS has a causal effect on communicative accuracy. These findings suggest a behavioral and neural mechanism, subserved by the SI and INS, that underlies the establishment of a novel interpersonal communication system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Experiment 1 setup and procedures.
a Two communicators sat behind separate computer screens across the table, each equipped with a mouse and a keyboard, respectively. Each dyad could not see the other during the task. b Two participants alternated as sender or receiver. c Timeline for total task periods and task trial sequence for the COP and CTP. The yellow and green square boxes show what the sender and receiver saw, respectively. COP coordination period, CTP communication testing period.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Experiment 2 setup and procedures.
a The fNIRS hyperscanning environment. The brain activities of two communicators in one dyad were recorded simultaneously using fNIRS. b The optode probes were placed on the right temporal-parietal area. T4 (orange circles) in the international 10-20 system was used as reference sites. c Figures used in the experimental and control conditions. d Characters used under the experimental condition. e Characters used under the control condition.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Behavioral results.
a SI score difference between the experimental condition and the control conditions. b Communicative accuracy during the COP difference between the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. c SI score difference between the success group and the failure group under the experimental condition. d Pearson’s correlation analyses between SI and communicative accuracy during the COP under the experimental condition. Data are plotted as violin and box plots for each group, with white dots indicating median values, boxes indicating 25% and 75% quartiles, and whiskers indicating the 2.5–97.5% percentile range. SI shared intentionality, COP coordination period. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. INS enhancement during the task.
a One-sample t-test map of INS in the right temporal-parietal areas under the experimental condition (two-tailed, corrected by FDR). b One-sample t-test map of INS in the right temporal-parietal regions under the control condition (two-tailed, FDR correction). c One sample t-test map of INS for the permutated time series based on the original data (two-tailed, FDR correction). d The paired samples t-test INS at CH15 under different conditions (experiment vs. control). e The paired samples t-test INS at CH15 under different conditions (experiment vs. random). Data are plotted as violin and box plots for each group, with white dots indicating median values, boxes indicating 25% and 75% quartiles, and whiskers indicating the 2.5–97.5% percentile range. INS interpersonal neural synchronization, COP coordination period. ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. INS enhancement during the task and correlations between behavioral indicators and the INS under the experimental condition.
a INS at CH15 during the COP difference between the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. b INS at CH20 during the COP difference between the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. c Pearson’s correlation between INS at CH15 and communicative accuracy during the COP in different groups (success vs. failure) under the experimental condition. d Pearson’s correlation between INS at CH15 and SI in different groups (success vs. failure) under the experimental condition. e The INS at CH15 mediated the effect of SI on communicative accuracy during the COP under the experimental condition. Data are plotted as violin and box plots for each group, with white dots indicating median values, boxes indicating 25% and 75% quartiles, and whiskers indicating the 2.5–97.5% percentile range. SI shared intentionality, INS interpersonal neural synchronization, COP coordination period. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and NS not significant.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6. The dynamics of the time-cumulative INS, trial-cumulative accuracy, and correlation results.
a The trial-cumulative accuracy during the COP in the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. b The time-cumulative INS at CH15 during COP in the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. Notably, the black vertical line with an asterisk in A and B indicates the earliest trial in which a significant difference between these two groups was found separately (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.05, FDR correction). c Dynamic correlations between the time-cumulative INS and trial-cumulative accuracy during the COP in the success and failure groups under the experimental condition. The red vertical line with one asterisk indicates the earliest trial that the correlations reached statistical significance in the success group (Spearman’s rank correlation, p < 0.05, FDR correction). INS interpersonal neural synchronization, COP coordination period. *p < 0.05.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7. Summary of the LSTM neural network performance.
a Predicted trial-communicative accuracy and observed trial-communicative accuracy values are shown from a dyad (sub 4) in the success group. b Predicted trial-communicative accuracy and observed trial-communicative accuracy values are shown for a dyad (sub 9) in the failure group. c Spearman’s rank correlation between predicted trial-communicative accuracy and observed trial-communicative accuracy in the testing dataset in the success group. d Spearman’s rank correlation between predicted trial-communicative accuracy and observed trial-communicative accuracy in the testing dataset in the failure group. The red vertical line with an asterisk indicates the earliest trial on which the correlations reached statistical significance in the success group (spearman’s rank correlation, p < 0.05, FDR correction).
Fig. 8
Fig. 8. Experiment 3 design.
a Experimental setup of the brain stimulation montage. Electrodes were placed over CP6 (anode) and FP1 (cathode), according to the international 10/10 system. b The relative stimulation phase between the brains was manipulated to be either in phase (0 relative phase) or anti-phase (180 relative phase). c Dual brain stimulation was administered through simultaneous tACS to dyads of participants prior to the CSCG with the fNIRS recording.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9. INS enhancement during the task in Experiment 3.
a Electric field distribution on the brain. b Differences in INS during the resting period among the three conditions were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). c One-sample t-test map of INS in the right temporal-parietal regions under the in-phase condition (two-tailed, FDR correction). d One-sample t-test map of INS in the right temporal-parietal regions under the sham condition (two-tailed, FDR correction). e One-sample t-test map of INS in the right temporal-parietal areas under the anti-phase condition (two-tailed, FDR correction). f Differences in INS during the COP among the three conditions were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data are plotted as violin and box plots for each group, with white dots indicating median values, boxes indicating 25% and 75% quartiles, and whiskers indicating the 2.5–97.5% percentile range. INS interpersonal neural synchronization, COP coordination period; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and NS not significant.
Fig. 10
Fig. 10. Experiment 3 behavioral results.
a Differences in communicative accuracy during the COP among three conditions were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). b Differences in communicative accuracy during the CTP among three conditions were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). c Pearson’s correlation analyses between INS and communicative accuracy during the COP. Data are plotted as violin and box plots for each group, with white dots indicating median values, boxes indicating 25% and 75% quartiles, and whiskers indicating the 2.5–97.5% percentile range. COP coordination period, CTP communication testing period. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and NS not significant.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pearson JC, Nelson PE, Titsworth S, Harter L. Human Communication. McGraw-Hill Education; 2017.
    1. Solomon DH, Knobloch LK, Theiss JA, McLaren RM. Relational turbulence theory: explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Hum. Commun. Res. 2016;42:507–532.
    1. Wood JT. Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. Cengage Learning; 2015.
    1. Friedkin NE. Social cohesion. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2004;30:409–425.
    1. Craig F, et al. Motor competency and social communication skills in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 2018;11:893–902. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms