Toward a second-person neuroscience

Schilbach, Leonhard; Timmermans, Bert; Reddy, Vasudevi; Costall, Alan; Bente, Gary; Schlicht, Tobias; Vogeley, Kai

doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660

Cited by 1,273 publications

(1,248 citation statements)

References 261 publications

(322 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,198

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neuroscientists have also recently stressed that a fine-grained analysis of the neural dynamics of social interaction is still missing, forming as it were the "dark matter" of social neuroscience (56). One of our motivations in designing the HDC was to create a tool for rigorous investigations of the neurophysiological basis of social interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human dynamic clamp as a paradigm for social interaction

Dumas

Guzman

Tognoli

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

145

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social neuroscience has called for new experimental paradigms aimed toward real-time interactions. A distinctive feature of interactions is mutual information exchange: One member of a pair changes in response to the other while simultaneously producing actions that alter the other. Combining mathematical and neurophysiological methods, we introduce a paradigm called the human dynamic clamp (HDC), to directly manipulate the interaction or coupling between a human and a surrogate constructed to behave like a human. Inspired by the dynamic clamp used so productively in cellular neuroscience, the HDC allows a person to interact in real time with a virtual partner itself driven by well-established models of coordination dynamics. People coordinate hand movements with the visually observed movements of a virtual hand, the parameters of which depend on input from the subject's own movements. We demonstrate that HDC can be extended to cover a broad repertoire of human behavior, including rhythmic and discrete movements, adaptation to changes of pacing, and behavioral skill learning as specified by a virtual "teacher." We propose HDC as a general paradigm, best implemented when empirically verified theoretical or mathematical models have been developed in a particular scientific field. The HDC paradigm is powerful because it provides an opportunity to explore parameter ranges and perturbations that are not easily accessible in ordinary human interactions. The HDC not only enables to test the veracity of theoretical models, it also illuminates features that are not always apparent in real-time human social interactions and the brain correlates thereof.human-machine interface | artificial agent | computational social neuroscience | multiscale | dynamical systems R eciprocally coupled complex systems in biology and psychology are notoriously difficult to study. Over the course of the last three decades, understanding how real neurons work individually and together has grown significantly in large part due to the so-called dynamic clamp paradigm (see ref. 1 for a review). The initial idea was to combine a standard electrophysiological setup with a computer interface, and then control in real time the current injected into a neuron as a function of its membrane potential measured via an intracellular electrode (2). The original dynamic clamp used tried and tested electrophysiological models such as the Hodgkin-Huxley equations (3) to explore parametrically how neurons behave. The latter, considered one of the most significant accomplishments in biophysics in the 20th century, provides a quantitative description of the electric potential across a cell membrane. The interaction between the real neuron and its artificial counterpart allows simulating artificial membrane or synaptic conductance (4, 5), chemical or electronic inputs (6, 7), and even connections with other neurons (8). Because the dynamic clamp falls midway between computational modeling and experimental electrophysiology, it affords the same degree of precision a...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human dynamic clamp as a paradigm for social interaction

Dumas

Guzman

Tognoli

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

145

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This movement was precipitated by the criticism that social cognition is fundamentally different when people engage in interaction, rather than remain mere observers (De Jaegher, 2009, Schilbach et al, 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontal alpha oscillations distinguish leaders from followers: Multivariate decoding of mutually interacting brains

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently, Schilbach (2010Schilbach ( , 2014 and Schilbach et al (2013) put forward a convincing argument for the urgency of a shift in experimental paradigm, stating that "recent conceptual and empirical developments consistently indicate the need for investigations that allow the study of real-time social encounters in a truly interactive manner. This suggestion is based on the premise that social cognition is fundamentally different when we are in interaction with others rather than merely observing them" (Schilbach et al, 2013, p. 393).…”

Section: Methodsological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

Holler

Kendrick

Casillas

et al. 2016

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The core use of language is in face-to-face conversation. This is characterized by rapid turn-taking. This turn-taking poses a number central puzzles for the psychology of language. Consider, for example, that in large corpora the gap between turns is on the order of 100 to 300 ms, but the latencies involved in language production require minimally between 600ms (for a single word) or 1500 ms (for as simple sentence). This implies that participants in conversation are predicting the ends of the incoming turn and preparing in advance. But how is this done? What aspects of this prediction are done when? What happens when the prediction is wrong? What stops participants coming in too early? If the system is running on prediction, why is there consistently a mode of 100 to 300 ms in response time? The timing puzzle raises further puzzles: it seems that comprehension must run parallel with the preparation for production, but it has been presumed that there are strict cognitive limitations on more than one central process running at a time. How is this bottleneck overcome? Far from being 'easy' as some psychologists have suggested, conversation may be one of the most demanding cognitive tasks in our everyday lives. Further questions naturally arise: how do children learn to master this demanding task, and what is the developmental trajectory in this domain? Research shows that aspects of turn-taking such as its timing are remarkably stable across languages and cultures, but the word order of languages varies enormously. How then does prediction of the incoming turn work when the verb (often the informational nugget in a clause) is at the end? Conversely, how can production work fast enough in languages that have the verb at the beginning, thereby requiring early planning of the whole clause? What happens when one changes modality, as in sign languages -- with the loss of channel constraints is turn-taking much freer? And what about face-to-face communication amongst hearing individuals -- do gestures, gaze, and other body behaviors facilitate turn-taking? One can also ask the phylogenetic question: how did such a system evolve? There seem to be parallels (analogies) in duetting bird species, and in a variety of monkey species, but there is little evidence of anything like this among the great apes. All this constitutes a neglected set of problems at the heart of the psychology of language and of the language sciences. This research topic welcomes contributions from right across the board, for example from psycholinguists, developmental psychologists, students of dialogue and conversation analysis, linguists interested in the use of language, phoneticians, corpus analysts and comparative ethologists or psychologists. We welcome contributions of all sorts, for example original research papers, opinion pieces, and reviews of work in subfields that may not be fully understood in other subfields

show abstract

Toward a second-person neuroscience

Cited by 1,273 publications

References 261 publications

The human dynamic clamp as a paradigm for social interaction

The human dynamic clamp as a paradigm for social interaction

Frontal alpha oscillations distinguish leaders from followers: Multivariate decoding of mutually interacting brains

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About