Interpersonal procceses

Question 1

Why is it wrong to only investigate people’s social behaviour and neural processes when they are alone?
A: ecological validity

Answer 1

1. diff behaviour when interacting with ppl vs computers
2. often only spectator tasks while soc interaction is dynamic, responding to each other
3. interacting via live video has diff activation than via recorded video.

Question 2

Why is it wrong to only investigate people’s social behaviour and neural processes when they are alone?
B: limited information

Answer 2

1. successfull interaction probably arises from 2 brains interacting, so we should scan 2 brains at same time.
2. some studies show no condition difference in 1 brain but do show condition difference in amount of synchronicity 2 brains.

Question 3

What are methodological obstacles in hyperscanning? How to solve them?

Answer 3

1. calibration of different devices (gradient strength, magnet strength)
   Sol: dont analyze Amp but look at temporal relations (Granger causation)
2. synchronizing devices in time
   Sol: use external trigger or feed into same channel/device

Question 4

What is pseudo hyperscanning?

Answer 4

Nonsimultaneously measuring 2 people, where 1 is sender and 1 is receiver. Sender is scanned while doing something, then showing video of sender to receiver while they are being scanned, and looking at temporal correlations between the two.

Question 5

What is Intersubject Correlation Analysis

Answer 5

Within 1 voxel, you make a timeseries of activation in each participant, which can be correlated in pairs. Then this correlation is averaged along all pairs, and using all voxels, an ISC map of the whole brain can be created. This looks at an internal noisy component (pp factor) and an external component, which is similar between pps if you look at stimulus driven processes like perception, language, recall of stories etc.

Question 6

Spilakova tested along which dimensions of social interaction affect the brain regions involved, namely cooperation vs competition (goal), and turn based vs concurrent (interaction). Method?

Answer 6

Interactive Pattern Completion Game: blue vs yellow tokens, builder vs helper/hinderer/observer. Goal builder: reproduce example. Brain activation 1s after response other subject is analyzed.

Question 7

Spilakova tested along which dimensions of social interaction affect the brain regions involved, namely cooperation vs competition (goal), and turn based vs concurrent (interaction). Results?

Answer 7

Coop: reward areas (vStriatum), perf monitoring (ACC), inferring intentions (PCC). To see what the other wants you to do, plus coop is rewarding
Comp: movement planning + attention (SMA, inferior frontal): to outsmart the other
Concurrent: mentalizing areas (STS, temporoparietal) bc need to continually anticipate what the other is doing bc it happens fast

Question 8

Social Baseline Theory (Beckes and Coan) is a theory supporting of the use of hyperscanning. What is it about?

Answer 8

Social proximity is hypothesized to be a baseline condition for humans. In proximity, brain returns to baseline relaxed state bc it assumes people mean safety (Bayesian inference). Less vigilance is needed, so less emotions, and thus less internal regulation (dlpfc decreased) If proximity is baseline, it makes little sense to study humans in isolation all the time, as their activation may be different from the normal state.

Question 9

What is the name of the theory that says the brain returns to baseline because it saves energy?

Answer 9

Economy of action

Question 10

Which form of ER does the social baseline theory talk about

Answer 10

situation selection: by being with others, energy can be saved on ER bc one feels more safe

Question 11

What data supports social baseline theory?

Answer 11

• when standing next to a friend, hills are judged less steep
• when confronted with shock pain, threat related brain activity was a function of proximity: least with partner, more with lower quality relationship, more with stranger, and most while alone
• Goldstein: pain reduction assoc with brain coupling

Question 12

What are 2 ways in which social proximity may enhance survival, resulting in the evolution of mechanisms that decrease threat related responses (emotions) in proximity?

Answer 12

• risk distribution: if you are in a group of 10, a predator may only attack one of you, reducing your risk from 1 to 1/10
• load sharing: you can divide tasks, and a group can detect a predator sooner than you can by yourself

Question 13

What prediction does social baseline theory make for people who have experienced low levels of social support?

Answer 13

• they do not predict the extra safety from social proximity, and will not show reduction in emotion (regulation), expected effect on broad range tasks.

Question 14

What are differences and similarities of social baseline theory with attachment theory?

Answer 14

• attachment doesnt hypothesize such broad effects
• attachment focuses on childhood caregivers instead of familiarity/predictability/reliability
• attachment may not be applicable to adulthood

Question 15

What is method of Goldstein study that shows pain reduction is associated with brain coupling?

Answer 15

conditions: pain vs no pain x in diff room vs holding hands vs not holding hands
measure: analgesic effect (diff pain between conditions)
empathic accuracy: diff pain judged by observer vs pain target

Question 16

What are the results of the goldstien study into holding hands effect on pain? How did they undermine the alternative explanation “touching distracts the target”

Answer 16

• holding hands meant greater analgesic effect (if by partner, not by stranger: not effect distraction)
• holding hands meant greater empathic accuracy
• during touch, more brain coupling
• more coupling in somatosensory areas was associated with more analgesia and more coupling in parietotemporal regions with empathic accuracy