2. 5082 âą J. Neurosci., March 20, 2013 âą 33(12):5081â5082 Yun âą Journal Club
communication than back-to-back dialog dialog. Moreover, fMRI gradient noise of- veloping treatment of social deficits asso-
(Arnal et al., 2009). Therefore, the stron- ten exceeds 100 dB and thus interferes ciated with autism.
ger interbrain correlation in face-to-face with auditory stimulation, which is crucial
dialog could result from either a higher for communication experiments (Plichta et References
quality of communication or from the al., 2011). Some argue that fNIRS may not Ahissar E, Nagarajan S, Ahissar M, Protopapas A,
face-to-face setting, in which various non- Mahncke H, Merzenich MM (2001) Speech
be appropriate for studies of the adult
comprehension is correlated with temporal re-
verbal cues were present. To deal with this human brain, because the light path is sponse patterns recorded from auditory cortex.
issue, Jiang et al. (2012) performed an ad- grossly affected by the CSF; understanding Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:13367â13372.
ditional analysis wherein they separated the optical properties of each layer of the CrossRef Medline
time points showing the nonverbal com- head, however, has allowed accurate model- Arnal LH, Morillon B, Kell CA, Giraud AL (2009)
munication between participants, such as ing of fNIRS characteristics in the adult hu- Dual neural routing of visual facilitation in
turn-taking behavior and body language. speech processing. J Neurosci 29:13445â13453.
man brain (Hoshi, 2003). CrossRef Medline
Time points in which facial expression In future studies, it may be worthwhile Bunce SC, Izzetoglu M, Izzetoglu K, Onaral B, Pour-
and gestures occurred showed significant to compute neural synchronization be- rezaei K (2006) Functional near-infrared spec-
neural synchronization compared with tween different regions of paired partici- troscopy. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 25:54 â 62.
other time points in the face-to-face dia- pants. Jiang et al. (2012) only compared CrossRef Medline
log condition only. The results suggest synchrony between the same regions of
Chandrasekaran C, Trubanova A, Stillittano S,
that the increased interbrain correlation Caplier A, Ghazanfar AA (2009) The natural
each paired participant. Critically, how- statistics of audiovisual speech. PLoS Comput
mainly reflected nonverbal interaction. ever, the neural synchronization does not Biol 5:e1000436. CrossRef Medline
However, it is still possible that the quality have to occur either at the same region or Farrow TFD, Zheng Y, Wilkinson ID, Spence SA,
of communication influences interbrain Deakin JFW, Tarrier N, Griffiths PD, Wood-
at the same time across the paired partic-
neural synchronization. A previous study ruff PWR (2001) Investigating the func-
ipants. Rather two brains may form a
suggests that changes in speech amplitude tional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness.
more complex dynamic system; for exam- Neuroreport 12:2433â2438. CrossRef
can be synchronized with the brain activ-
ple, when two people interact, activity in Medline
ity of a listener (Chandrasekaran et al.,
the perceptual system of one brain is likely Hasson U, Ghazanfar AA, Galantucci B, Garrod S,
2009). Successful temporal synchrony be- Keysers C (2012) Brain-to-brain coupling: a
to be correlated, with some time delay,
tween two participantsâ dialog and brain mechanism for creating and sharing a social
with activity in the motor system of the
activity increased the signal-to-noise ratio world. Trends Cogn Sci 16:114 â121. CrossRef
of neural signals and thus helped to im- other brain (Hasson et al., 2012). Medline
prove quality of communication (Ahissar Face-to-face communication offers a Hoshi Y (2003) Functional near-infrared optical
et al., 2001; Luo and Poeppel, 2007). superior form of communication in the imaging: utility and limitations in human brain
A major advantage of fNIRS is that the context of this study. We communicate mapping. Psychophysiology 40:511â520.
over the phone and by e-mail, but mes- CrossRef Medline
instrument is more portable and inex- Jiang J, Dai B, Peng D, Zhu C, Liu L, Lu C (2012)
pensive for functional neuroimaging sages tend to get misinterpreted and a so-
Neural synchronization during face-to-face
than functional magnetic resonance im- cial connection can hardly be established communication. J Neurosci 32:16064 â16069.
aging (fMRI). In addition, fNIRS is robust or maintained. Jiang et al. (2012) found CrossRef Medline
to movement artifacts compared with that face-to-face interaction increased the Luo H, Poeppel D (2007) Phase patterns of neuro-
quality of communication as well as inter- nal responses reliably discriminate speech in hu-
EEG and fMRI, allowing investigation of
brain correlated activity, suggesting there man auditory cortex. Neuron 54:1001â1010.
language processes, infants, and various CrossRef Medline
neuropsychiatric patients who cannot re- is some literal truth to the expression âwe Plichta MM, Gerdes AB, Alpers GW, Harnisch W,
main sufficiently still for fMRI (Bunce et are on the same wavelengthâ. The study Brill S, Wieser MJ, Fallgatter AJ (2011) Au-
al., 2006). fNIRS is especially appropriate suggests that face-to-face communication ditory cortex activation is modulated by emo-
for a face-to-face dialog experimental set- has important neural and behavioral fea- tion: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy
ting in that fMRI does not allow us the tures that other types of communication (fNIRS) study. Neuroimage 55:1200 â1207.
CrossRef Medline
study of a face-to-face condition and EEG cannot rival, and the interbrain correla-
Yun K, Watanabe K, Shimojo S (2012) Interper-
is vulnerable to movement artifacts, in- tion results may have implications for un- sonal body and neural synchronization as a
cluding those produced by vocalization, derstanding the neural mechanisms of marker of implicit social interaction. Sci Rep
facial expression, and gestures involved in social interaction and diagnosing and de- 2:959. Medline