Advertisement

Human Physiology

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 587–595 | Cite as

Electrophysiological Indicators of Brain Activity in the Process of Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication during the Dialogue

  • O. V. Shchemeleva
  • O. V. ZhukovaEmail author
  • Yu. E. ShelepinEmail author
  • G. A. Moiseenko
  • P. P. Vasilyev
Article

Abstract

We compared several types of EEG parameters of two interlocutors during verbal and non-verbal communication. A hardware–software complex and associated method were developed for EEG hyperscanning, i.e., simultaneous EEG recording in two subjects with different location (face to face and back to back) during observation, listening, dialogue, and monologue. We observed a relationship between the total EEG power and the combination of the verbal and non-verbal components of communication. In the comparison of different types of communication, a statistically significant difference in the EEG power was found when the interlocutors were placed face-to-face and back-to-back. The highest total EEG power of brain activity was observed for the interlocutor location face-to-face compared to back-to-back. Another most important EEG parameter, spectral composition, also varied depending on the communication process of the interlocutors. EEG rhythms in different leads were redistributed. The EEG parameters that can serve as markers of different modes of communication of interlocutors were identified.

Keywords:

perception of facial expressions and speech verbal and non-verbal communication EEG spectral analysis EEG hyperscanning “mirror” neurons neural networks 

Notes

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Program of Basic Research at State Academies for 2013–2020 (GP-14, Section 63), Pavlov institute of Physiology, RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia.

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

Conflict of interests. The authors declare no explicit and potential conflicts of interest associated with the publication of this article.

Statement of compliance with standards of research involving humans as subjects. All studies were conducted in accordance with the principles of biomedical ethics set out in the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 and its subsequent updates, and approved by the local bioethics committee of Pavlov Institute of Physiology, Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg). Each study participant provided voluntary written informed consent signed by them after his explanations potential risks and benefits, as well as the nature of the forthcoming investigations.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Liu, D., Liu, S., Liu, X., et al., Interactive brain activity: review and progress on EEG-based hyperscanning in social interactions, Front. Psychol., 2018, vol. 9, p. 1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Montague, P.R., Berns, G.S., Cohen, J.D., et al., Hyperscanning: simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions, NeuroImage, 2002, vol. 16, p. 1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sänger, J., Müller, V., and Lindenberger, U., Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2012, vol. 6, p. 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhukova, O.V., Shelepin, Yu.E., Moiseenko, G.A., et al., Neurophysiological mechanisms supporting social interaction in the human activities, Materialy 3-i Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii “Tekhnologicheskaya perspektiva v ramkakh Evraziiskogo prostranstva: novye rynki i tochki ekonomicheskogo rosta” (Proc. Third Int. Sci. Conf. “Technological Perspectives within the Eurasian Space: New Markets and Economic Growth”), St. Petersburg, 2017, p. 317.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murtazina, E.P., Zhuravlev, B.V., and Trifonova, N.Yu., Development of psychophysiological models and research methods of competitive and cooperative interactions between two subjects, Neirokomp.: Razrab. Primen., 2017, no. 8, p. 20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, E.T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tereshchenko, E.P., Ponomarev, V.A., Kropotov, Yu.D., and Müller, A., Comparative efficiencies of different methods for removing blink artifacts in analyzing quantitative electroencephalogram and event-related potentials, Hum. Physiol., 2009, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perrin, F., Pernier, J., Bertrand, O., et al., Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1989, vol. 72, p. 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox, N.A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Yoo, K.H., et al., Assessing human mirror activity with EEG mu rhythm: a meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull., 2016, vol. 142, no. 3, p. 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shelepin, Yu.E., Vvedenie v neiroikoniku (Introduction into Neurocomic), St. Petersburg: Troitskii Most, 2017.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, Y., Piazza, E.A., Simony, E., et al., Measuring speaker–listener neural coupling with functional near infrared spectroscopy, Sci. Rep., 2017, vol. 7, art. ID 43 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pavlov institute of Physiology, RASSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations