fNIRS reveals that live social interactions and visual realism influence neural responses
Kent, M.; Deligiannis, E.; Stubbs, K. M.; Babin, K.; Duerden, E. G.; Culham, J. C.
Show abstract
The human face is central to social interactions, supporting the ability to interpret others mental states using theory of mind (ToM). We examined whether functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) would reveal brain-activation differences between live and pre-recorded social conversations in brain regions implicated in ToM. Furthermore, we examined whether activation depended on the visual realism of a social partner - viewed as a human or an animated avatar. By one view, social interactions may be dependent on how natural the social partner appears; by another view, social interactions may depend only upon the attribution of responses to a real human regardless of visual appearance. Neural activation for pre-recorded compared to live interactions was prolonged, consistent with extended cognitive effort. Activation patterns in the right temporoparietal junction differed between interacting with humans versus avatars, along with a stronger preference for looking at the eyes when interacting with a human (vs. avatar), underscoring the social relevance of real faces. Findings highlight the importance of both live interactions and facial realism in shaping social-cognitive processing, a finding with relevance for optimizing online social interactions.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Shared Characteristics of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks Underlying Interoceptive Awareness and Empathy 93%
- Fronto-Parietal Oscillatory Dynamics of Emotion Regulation as a Function of Adult Attachment Orientations 92%
- Higher levels of narrativity lead to similar patterns of EEG activity across individuals 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.