Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 991–1002 | Cite as

Donate or receive? Social hyperscanning application with fNIRS

  • Michela BalconiEmail author
  • Giulia Fronda
  • Maria Elide Vanutelli
Article
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Prosocial behavior Hyperscanning Inter-brain activity Intra-brain activity Gift exchange 

Notes

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.

Ethical Approval

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.

Informed Consent

Oral informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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
  2. Adolphs, R. (1999). Social cognition and human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 469–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01399-6.Google Scholar
  3. Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425–429.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1593–1636.  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw024.Google Scholar
  6. Balconi, M., & Bortolotti, A. (2012a). Detection of the facial expression of emotion and self-report measures in empathic situations are influenced by sensorimotor circuit inhibition by low-frequency rTMS. Brain Stimulation, 5(3), 330–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.05.004.Google Scholar
  7. Balconi, M., & Bortolotti, A. (2012b). Resonance mechanism in empathic behavior: BEES, BIS/BAS and psychophysiological contribution. Physiology & Behavior, 105(2), 298–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.002.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Balconi, M., & Canavesio, Y. (2014). High-frequency rTMS on DLPFC increases prosocial attitude in case of decision to support people. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.861361.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Balconi, M., & Molteni, E. (2016). Past and future of near-infrared spectroscopy in studies of emotion and social neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 129–146.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1102919.Google Scholar
  12. Balconi, M., & Pagani, S. (2014). Personality correlates (BAS-BIS), self-perception of social ranking, and cortical (alpha frequency band) modulation in peer-group comparison. Physiology and Behavior, 133, 207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.043.Google Scholar
  13. Balconi, M., & Pagani, S. (2015). Social hierarchies and emotions: Cortical prefrontal activity, facial feedback (EMG), and cognitive performance in a dynamic interaction. Social Neuroscience, 10(2), 166–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.977403.Google Scholar
  14. Balconi, M., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2016). Competition in the brain. The contribution of EEG and fNIRS modulation and personality effects in social ranking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1587.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01587.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Balconi, M., Crivelli, D., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2017a). Why to cooperate is better than to compete: Brain and personality components. BMC Neuroscience, 18(1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12868-017-0386-8.Google Scholar
  17. Balconi, M., Pezard, L., Nandrino, J. L., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2017b). Two is better than one: The effects of strategic cooperation on intra- and inter-brain connectivity by fNIRS. PLoS One, 12(11), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187652.Google Scholar
  18. Balconi, M., Vanutelli, M. E., & Grippa, E. (2017c). Resting state and personality component (BIS/BAS) predict the brain activity (EEG and fNIRS measure) in response to emotional cues. Brain and Behavior, 7(5), e00686.  https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.686.Google Scholar
  19. Balconi, M., Gatti, L., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2018). Cooperate or not cooperate EEG , autonomic , and behavioral correlates of ineffective joint strategies. Brain and Behavior, 8(2), e00902.  https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.902.Google Scholar
  20. Bazzini, D. G., Stack, E. R., Martincin, P. D., & Davis, C. P. (2007). The effect of reminiscing about laughter on relationship satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9045-6.Google Scholar
  21. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123(11), 2189–2202.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189.Google Scholar
  22. Beckmann, M., Johansen-Berg, H., & Rushworth, M. F. (2009). Connectivity-based parcellation of human cingulate cortex and its relation to functional specialization. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(4), 1175–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3328-08.2009.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as Agapic love - an alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 393–417.  https://doi.org/10.1086/209357.Google Scholar
  25. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Butler, E. A., & Randall, A. (2013). Emotional coregulation in close relationships. Emotion Review, 5(2), 202–210.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912451630.Google Scholar
  28. Caplow, T. (1982). Christmas gifts and kin networks. The Sociological Review, 47, 383–392.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2094994.Google Scholar
  29. Caplow, T. (1984). Rule enforcement without visible means: Christmas gift giving in Middletown. American Journal of Sociology, 89(6), 1306–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1086/228017.Google Scholar
  30. Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 199–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030953.Google Scholar
  31. Carey, J. R., Clicque, S. H., Leighton, B. A., & Milton, F. (1976). A test of positive reinforcement of customers. Journal of Marketing, 40(4), 98–100.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1251075.Google Scholar
  32. Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017145.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Chan, C., & Mogilner, C. (2016). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 913–931.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw067.Google Scholar
  35. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Parrish, T. B., Sadato, N., & Iidaka, T. (2009). Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Human Brain Mapping, 30(9), 2813–2820.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20707.Google Scholar
  36. Chung, D., Yun, K., & Jeong, J. (2015). Decoding covert motivations of free riding and cooperation from multi-feature pattern analysis of EEG signals. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(9), 1210–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv006.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. Crivelli, D., & Balconi, M. (2017). The agent brain: A review of non-invasive brain stimulation studies on sensing agency. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 229.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00229.Google Scholar
  41. Cui, X., Bryant, D. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2012). NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals increased interpersonal coherence in superior frontal cortex during cooperation. NeuroImage, 59(3), 2430–2437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.003.Google Scholar
  42. Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J., & Garnero, L. (2010). Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS One, 5(8), e12166.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012166.Google Scholar
  43. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 213–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.005.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623.Google Scholar
  48. Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How and where does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.Google Scholar
  49. Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316(5831), 1622–1625.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140738.Google Scholar
  50. Immordino-Yang, M. H., McColl, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 0810363106, 8021–8026.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810363106.Google Scholar
  51. Kalbe, E., Schlegel, M., Sack, A. T., Nowak, D. A., Dafotakis, M., Bangard, C., Brand, M., Shamay-Tsoory, S., Onur, O. A., & Kessler, J. (2010). Dissociating cognitive from affective theory of mind: A TMS study. Cortex, 46(6), 769–780.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.010.Google Scholar
  52. Kawasaki, M., Yamada, Y., Ushiku, Y., Miyauchi, E., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2013). Inter-brain synchronization during coordination of speech rhythm in human- to-human social interaction. Scientific Reports, 3, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01692.Google Scholar
  53. Keysers, C., Kaas, J. H., & Gazzola, V. (2010). Somatosensation in social perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(6), 417–428.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2833.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Konvalinka, I., Bauer, M., Stahlhut, C., Hansen, L. K., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2014). Frontal alpha oscillations distinguish leaders from followers: Multivariate decoding of mutually interacting brains. Neuroimage, 94, 79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.003.Google Scholar
  57. Lambert, N. M., Clark, M. S., Durtschi, J., Fincham, F. D., & Graham, S. M. (2010). Benefits of expressing gratitude: Expressing gratitude to a partner changes one’s view of the relationship. Psychological Science, 21(4), 574–580.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364003.Google Scholar
  58. Lindenberger, U., Li, S. C., Gruber, W., & Müller, V. (2009). Brains swinging in concert: Cortical phase synchronization while playing guitar. BMC Neuroscience, 10(1), 22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-22.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Marsh, A. A., Blair, K. S., Jones, M. M., Soliman, N., & Blair, R. J. R. (2009). Dominance and submission: The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and responses to status cues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 713–724.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00553.Google Scholar
  61. Matsuda, G., & Hiraki, K. (2006). Sustained decrease in oxygenated hemoglobin during video games in the dorsal prefrontal cortex: A NIRS study of children. NeuroImage, 29(3), 706–711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.019.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–266.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249.Google Scholar
  64. McGovern, L. P., Ditzian, J. L., & Taylor, S. P. (1975). The effect of one positive reinforcement on helping with cost. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(5), 421–423.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333287.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. (2007). From social talk to social action: Shaping the social triad with emotion sharing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 780–797.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.780.Google Scholar
  68. Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Antecedents and contexts of generativity motivation at midlife. Psychology and Aging, 11(1), 21–33.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.21.Google Scholar
  69. Petrican, R., & Schimmack, U. (2008). The role of dorsolateral prefrontal function in relationship commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1130–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.001.Google Scholar
  70. Phillips, M. L., Drevets, W. C., Rauch, S. L., & Lane, R. (2003). Neurobiology of emotion perception II: Implications for major psychiatric disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 54(5), 515–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00171-9.Google Scholar
  71. Raghunathan, R., & Corfman, K. (2006). Is happiness shared doubled and sadness shared halved? Social influence on enjoyment of hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.386.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer’s remorse or missed opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024999.Google Scholar
  75. Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An examination of superior–subordinate interactions in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3271–3282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.014.Google Scholar
  76. Sänger, J., Müller, V., & Lindenberger, U. (2012). Intra-and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 312.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312.Google Scholar
  77. Schroeter, M. L., Zysset, S., Kruggel, F., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2003). Age dependency of the hemodynamic response as measured by functional near-infrared spectroscopy. NeuroImage, 19(3), 555–564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00155-1.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009.Google Scholar
  80. Shimada, S., & Hiraki, K. (2006). Infant’s brain responses to live and televised action. NeuroImage, 32(2), 930–939.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.044.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Suzuki, S., Niki, K., Fujisaki, S., & Akiyama, E. (2011). Neural basis of conditional cooperation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(3), 338–347.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq042.Google Scholar
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1193.Google Scholar
  86. Van Overwalle, F. (2011). A dissociation between social mentalizing and general reasoning. NeuroImage, 54(2), 1589–1599.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.043.Google Scholar
  87. Vanutelli, M. E., Nandrino, J. L., & Balconi, M. (2016). The boundaries of cooperation: Sharing and coupling from ethology to neuroscience. Neuropsychological Trends, 19, 83–104.  https://doi.org/10.7358/neur-2016-019-vanu.Google Scholar
  88. Vanutelli, M. E., Gatti, L., Angioletti, L., & Balconi, M. (2017). Affective synchrony and autonomic coupling during cooperation: A hyperscanning study. BioMed Research International, 2017, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3104564.Google Scholar
  89. Walker, R., Techawachirakul, P., & Haggard, P. (2009). Frontal eye field stimulation modulates the balance of salience between target and distractors. Brain Research, 1270, 54–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-609-2_33.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. Yun, K., Watanabe, K., & Shimojo, S. (2012). Interpersonal body and neural synchronization as a marker of implicit social interaction. Scientific Reports, 2, 959.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00959.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit in Affective and Social NeuroscienceCatholic University of the Sacred HeartMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCatholic University of the Sacred HeartMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations