Donate or receive? Social hyperscanning application with fNIRS
- 115 Downloads
Recent research in social neuroscience has shown how prosocial behavior can increase perceived self-efficacy, perception of cognitive abilitites and social interactions. The present research explored the effect of prosocial behavior, that is giving a gift during an interpersonal exchange, measuring the hyperscanning among two brains. The experiment aimed to analyze the behavioral performance and the brain-to-brain prefrontal neural activity of 16 dyads during a joint action consisting in a cooperative game, which took place in a laboratory setting controlled by an experimenter, to play before and after a gift exchange. Two different types of gift exchange were compared: experiential and material. Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) was applied to record brain activity. Inter-brain connectivity was calculated before and after the gift exchange. In behavioral data, a behavioral performance increase was observed after gift exchange, with accuracy improvement and response times decrease. Regarding intra-brain analyses, an increase in oxygenated hemoglobin was detected, especially in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in both donor and receiver; and in the dorsal part of the premotor cortex (DPMC) in the donor. Moreover, as regards the gift type, greater activation in the DPLFC emerged in both the donor and the receiver after receiving an experiential gift. Finally, the results of the inter-brain connectivity analysis showed that after gift exchange, the donor and receiver brain activity was more synchronized in the DPMC and Frontal Eye Fields (FEF) areas. The present study provides a contribution to the identification of inter-brain functional connectivity when prosocial behaviors are played out.
KeywordsProsocial behavior Hyperscanning Inter-brain activity Intra-brain activity Gift exchange
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.
All procedures performed in studies involving hu- man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Oral informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.
- Aalto, S., Brück, A., Laine, M., Någren, K., & Rinne, J. O. (2005). Frontal and temporal dopamine release during working memory and attention tasks in healthy humans: A positron emission tomography study using the high-affinity dopamine D2 receptor ligand [11C] FLB 457. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(10), 2471–2477. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2097-04.2005.Google Scholar
- Baeken, C., Van Schuerbeek, P., De Raedt, R., De Mey, J., Vanderhasselt, M. A., Bossuyt, A., & Luypaert, R. (2011). The effect of one left-sided dorsolateral prefrontal sham-controlled HF-rTMS session on approach and withdrawal related emotional neuronal processes. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(11), 2217–2226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.04.009.Google Scholar
- Balconi, M., & Canavesio, Y. (2013). Emotional contagion and trait empathy in prosocial behavior in young people: The contribution of autonomic (facial feedback) and Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) measures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2012.742492.Google Scholar
- Balconi, M., & Canavesio, Y. (2016). Is empathy necessary to comprehend the emotional faces? The empathic effect on attentional mechanisms (eye movements), cortical correlates (N200 event-related potentials) and facial behaviour (electromyography) in face processing. Cognition and Emotion, 30(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.993306.Google Scholar
- Balconi, M., & Vanutelli, E. (2017). Empathy in negative and positive interpersonal interactions. What is the relationship between central (EEG, fNIRS) and peripheral (autonomic) neurophysiological responses? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0211-0.Google Scholar
- Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1991). Can’t buy me love: Dating, money, and gifts. Advances in Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACT.2016.7423268.
- Bilek, E., Ruf, M., Schäfer, A., Akdeniz, C., Calhoun, V. D., Schmahl, C., Demanuele, C., Tost, H., Kirsch, P., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2015). Information flow between interacting human brains: Identification, validation, and relationship to social expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 5207–5212. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421831112.Google Scholar
- Centelles, L., Assaiante, C., Nazarian, B., Anton, J. L., & Schmitz, C. (2011). Recruitment of both the mirror and the mentalizing networks when observing social interactions depicted by point-lights: A neuroimaging study. PLoS One, 6(1), e15749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015749.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.Google Scholar
- Clark, M. S., & Finkel, E. J. (2017). Does expressing emotion promote well-being? It depends on relationship context. The Social Life of Emotions, 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819568.007.
- Clark, H. B., Northrop, J. T., & Barkshire, C. T. (1988). The effects of contingent thank-you notes on case managers’ visiting residential clients. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 45–51.Google Scholar
- Feldman, R. (2012). Parent-infant synchrony: A biobehavioral model of mutual in uences in the formation of a liative bonds. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Series, 77(2), 42–51.Google Scholar
- Funane, T., Kiguchi, M., Atsumori, H., Sato, H., Kubota, K., & Koizumi, H. (2011). Synchronous activity of two people's prefrontal cortices during a cooperative task measured by simultaneous near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 16(7), 077011. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3602853.Google Scholar
- Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How and where does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.Google Scholar
- Knutson, B., & Cooper, J. C. (2005). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of reward prediction. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000173463.24758.f6.Google Scholar
- Koessler, L., Maillard, L., Benhadid, A., Vignal, J. P., Felblinger, J., Vespignani, H., & Braun, M. (2009). Automated cortical projection of EEG sensors: Anatomical correlation via the international 10-10 system. NeuroImage, 46(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.006.Google Scholar
- Liu, T., Saito, H., & Oi, M. (2012). Distinctive activation patterns under intrinsically versus extrinsically driven cognitive loads in prefrontal cortex: A near-infrared spectroscopy study using a driving video game. Neuroscience Letters, 506(2), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.11.009.Google Scholar
- McCullough, M. E., & Tsang, J. A. (2012). Parent of the virtues?: The prosocial contours of gratitude. In The psychology of gratitude (pp. 123–141). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150100.003.0007.Google Scholar
- Nummenmaa, L., Glerean, E., Viinikainen, M., Jaaskelainen, I. P., Hari, R., & Sams, M. (2012). Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(24), 9599–9604. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206095109.Google Scholar
- Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141.Google Scholar
- Ramanathan, S., & McGill, A. L. (2006). Consuming with others: Social influences on moment-to-moment and retrospective evaluations of experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 506–524.Google Scholar
- Rind, B., & Bordia, P. (1995). Effect of Server’s “thank you” and personalization on restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(9), 745–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01772.x.Google Scholar
- Schubotz, R. I., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). Functional organization of the lateral premotor cortex: fMRI reveals different regions activated by anticipation of object properties, location and speed. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00069-0.Google Scholar
- Shulman, G. L., Pope, D. L. W., Astafiev, S. V., McAvoy, M. P., Snyder, A. Z., & Corbetta, M. (2010). Right hemisphere dominance during spatial selective attention and target detection occurs outside the dorsal Frontoparietal network. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(10), 3640–3651. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4085-09.2010.Google Scholar
- Szymanski, C., Pesquita, A., Brennan, A. A., Perdikis, D., Enns, J. T., Brick, T. R., Müller, V., & Lindenberger, U. (2017). Teams on the same wavelength perform better: Inter-brain phase synchronization constitutes a neural substrate for social facilitation. Neuroimage, 152, 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.013.Google Scholar
- Szymański, J., Janikiewicz, J., Michalska, B., Patalas-Krawczyk, P., Perrone, M., Ziółkowski, W., Duszyński, J., Pinton, P., Dobrzyń, A., & Więckowski, M. R. (2017). Interaction of mitochondria with the endoplasmic reticulum and plasma membrane in calcium homeostasis, lipid trafficking and mitochondrial structure. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(7), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18071576.Google Scholar
- Watanabe, Y., Sumitani, S., Hosokawa, M., & Ohmori, T. (2015). Prefrontal activation during two Japanese Stroop tasks revealed with multi-channel near-infrared spectroscopy. The Journal of Medical Investigation, 62(1.2), 51–55.Google Scholar
- Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., Gluud, C., Martin, R. M., Wood, A. J. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ, 336(7644), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD.Google Scholar