CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Collaborative rule learning promotes interbrain information alignment

Moerel, Denise, Grootswagers, Tijl, Quek, Genevieve L., Smit, Sophie, Varlet, Manuel·2025·PLOS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social interactions shape our perception of the world, influencing how we interpret incoming information. Alignment between interacting individuals’ sensory and cognitive processes is key to successful cooperation and communication, but the neural processes underlying this alignment remain unknown. Here, we leveraged Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) on electroencephalography (EEG) hyperscanning data to investigate information alignment in 24 pairs of participants who performed a categorization task together based on agreed-upon rules. Significant interbrain information alignment emerged within 45 ms of stimulus presentation and persisted for hundreds of milliseconds. Early alignment (45–180 ms) occurred in both real and randomly matched pseudo-pairs, reflecting shared sensory responses. Importantly, alignment after 200 ms strengthened with practice and was unique to real pairs, driven by shared representations associated with, and extending beyond, the categorization rules they formed. Together, these findings highlight distinct processes underpinning interbrain information alignment during social interactions, that can be effectively captured and disentangled with Interbrain RSA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. RB Cialdini, 2004, Social influence: compliance and conformity, Annu Rev Psychol, 55, 591, 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · DOI · Paper page
  2. C Moore, 2014, Joint attention: its origins and role in development, 10.4324/9781315806617 · DOI
  3. M Tomasello, 2005, Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition, Behav Brain Sci, 28, 675, 10.1017/S0140525X05000129 · DOI · Paper page
  4. R Koenig-Robert, 2024, Movement trajectories as a window into the dynamics of emerging neural representations, Sci Rep, 14, 11499, 10.1038/s41598-024-62135-7 · DOI
  5. SA Nastase, 2019, Measuring shared responses across subjects using intersubject correlation, Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 14, 667
  6. AK Robinson, 2023, Visual representations: insights from neural decoding, Annu Rev Vis Sci, 9, 313, 10.1146/annurev-vision-100120-025301 · DOI
  7. CA Coey, 2012, Coordination dynamics in a socially situated nervous system, Front Hum Neurosci, 6, 164
  8. N Sebanz, 2006, Joint action: bodies and minds moving together, Trends Cogn Sci, 10, 70, 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009 · DOI · Paper page
  9. A Czeszumski, 2020, Hyperscanning: a valid method to study neural inter-brain underpinnings of social interaction, Front Hum Neurosci, 14, 39, 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00039 · DOI · Paper page
  10. A Zamm, 2024, A practical guide to EEG hyperscanning in joint action research: from motivation to implementation, Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 19, 10.1093/scan/nsae026 · DOI
  11. D Moerel, 2025, Neural decoding of competitive decision-making in Rock-Paper-Scissors, Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci
  12. M Varlet, 2024, Measuring information alignment in hyperscanning research with representational analyses: moving beyond interbrain synchrony, Front Hum Neurosci, 18, 1385624, 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1385624 · DOI
  13. Z Zada, 2024, A shared model-based linguistic space for transmitting our thoughts from brain to brain in natural conversations, Neuron, 112, 10.1016/j.neuron.2024.06.025 · DOI
  14. BA Kelsen, 2022, What has social neuroscience learned from hyperscanning studies of spoken communication? A systematic review, Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 132, 1249, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.008 · DOI
  15. Y Mu, 2018, Neural mechanisms underlying interpersonal coordination: a review of hyperscanning research, Soc Pers Psych, 12
  16. NV Shemyakina, 2021, Neurophysiological characteristics of competition in skills and cooperation in creativity task performance: a review of hyperscanning research, Hum Physiol, 47, 87, 10.1134/S0362119721010126 · DOI
  17. H Pick, 2024, Brainstorming: Interbrain coupling in groups forms the basis of group creativity, Commun Biol, 7, 911, 10.1038/s42003-024-06614-7 · DOI
  18. V Reindl, 2022, Multimodal hyperscanning reveals that synchrony of body and mind are distinct in mother-child dyads, Neuroimage, 251, 118982, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.118982 · DOI
  19. Y Endevelt-Shapira, 2021, Maternal chemosignals enhance infant-adult brain-to-brain synchrony, Sci Adv, 7, 10.1126/sciadv.abg6867 · DOI
  20. S Kinreich, 2017, Brain-to-brain synchrony during naturalistic social interactions, Sci Rep, 7, 17060, 10.1038/s41598-017-17339-5 · DOI · Paper page
  21. F Babiloni, 2007, Cortical activity and connectivity of human brain during the prisoner’s dilemma: an EEG hyperscanning study, Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2007, 4953
  22. F De Vico Fallani, 2010, Defecting or not defecting: how to “read” human behavior during cooperative games by EEG measurements, PLoS One, 5, 10.1371/journal.pone.0014187 · DOI
  23. N Sinha, 2016, EEG hyperscanning study of inter-brain synchrony during cooperative and competitive interaction., 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 004813, 10.1109/SMC.2016.7844990 · DOI
  24. AP Burgess, 2013, On the interpretation of synchronization in EEG hyperscanning studies: a cautionary note, Front Hum Neurosci, 7, 881, 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00881 · DOI
  25. AF de C Hamilton, 2021, Hyperscanning: beyond the hype, Neuron, 109, 404, 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.11.008 · DOI · Paper page
  26. CB Holroyd, 2022, Interbrain synchrony: on wavy ground, Trends Neurosci, 45, 346, 10.1016/j.tins.2022.02.002 · DOI
  27. G Novembre, 2021, Hyperscanning alone cannot prove causality. multibrain stimulation can, Trends Cogn Sci, 25, 96, 10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.003 · DOI
  28. M Zimmermann, 2024, Arbitrary methodological decisions skew inter-brain synchronization estimates in hyperscanning-EEG studies, Imaging Neurosci (Camb), 2
  29. N Kriegeskorte, 2008, Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience, Front Syst Neurosci, 2, 4
  30. T Carlson, 2013, Representational dynamics of object vision: the first 1000 ms, J Vis, 13, 1, 10.1167/13.10.1 · DOI
  31. RM Cichy, 2014, Resolving human object recognition in space and time, Nat Neurosci, 17, 455, 10.1038/nn.3635 · DOI
  32. EW Contini, 2017, Decoding the time-course of object recognition in the human brain: from visual features to categorical decisions, Neuropsychologia, 105, 165, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.02.013 · DOI
  33. S Bode, 2012, The neural encoding of guesses in the human brain, Neuroimage, 59, 1924, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.106 · DOI
  34. T Grootswagers, 2021, The neural dynamics underlying prioritisation of task-relevant information, Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis, and Theory, 5, 10.51628/001c.21174 · DOI
  35. D Moerel, 2022, The time-course of feature-based attention effects dissociated from temporal expectation and target-related processes, Sci Rep, 12, 10.1038/s41598-022-10687-x · DOI
  36. D Moerel, 2024, Selective attention and decision-making have separable neural bases in space and time, J Neurosci, 44
  37. GL Quek, 2024, Visual periodicity reveals distinct attentional signatures for face and non-face categories, Cereb Cortex, 34
  38. J Jackson, 2017, Feature-selective attention in frontoparietal cortex: multivoxel codes adjust to prioritize task-relevant information, J Cogn Neurosci, 29, 310, 10.1162/jocn_a_01039 · DOI
  39. JB Jackson, 2018, Adaptive coding in the human brain: distinct object features are encoded by overlapping voxels in frontoparietal cortex, Cortex, 108, 25, 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.07.006 · DOI
  40. A Woolgar, 2015, Attention enhances multi-voxel representation of novel objects in frontal, parietal and visual cortices, Neuroimage, 109, 429, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.083 · DOI
  41. CA Smout, 2019, Attention promotes the neural encoding of prediction errors, PLoS Biol, 17, 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006812 · DOI
  42. E Goddard, 2022, Spatial and feature-selective attention have distinct, interacting effects on population-level tuning, J Cogn Neurosci, 34, 290, 10.1162/jocn_a_01796 · DOI
  43. A Czeszumski, 2022, Cooperative behavior evokes interbrain synchrony in the prefrontal and temporoparietal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis of fNIRS hyperscanning studies, eNeuro, 9, 10.1523/ENEURO.0268-21.2022 · DOI
  44. Q Zhao, 2024, Interpersonal neural synchronization during social interactions in close relationships: a systematic review and meta-analysis of fNIRS hyperscanning studies, Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 158, 105565, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105565 · DOI
  45. N Jacoby, 2024, Commonality and variation in mental representations of music revealed by a cross-cultural comparison of rhythm priors in 15 countries, Nat Hum Behav, 8, 846, 10.1038/s41562-023-01800-9 · DOI
  46. PE Keller, 2014, Rhythm in joint action: psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 369, 20130394, 10.1098/rstb.2013.0394 · DOI · Paper page
  47. KL Marsh, 2009, Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination, Top Cogn Sci, 1, 320, 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01022.x · DOI
  48. M Varlet, 2020, Neural tracking and integration of “self” and “other” in improvised interpersonal coordination, Neuroimage, 206, 116303, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116303 · DOI
  49. A D’Ausilio, 2015, What can music tell us about social interaction?, Trends Cogn Sci, 19, 111, 10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.005 · DOI
  50. J MacRitchie, 2017, Embodied expression through entrainment and co-representation in musical ensemble performance., 150, 10.4324/9781315621364-17 · DOI
  51. K Miles, 2023, Behavioral dynamics of conversation, (mis)communication and coordination in noisy environments, Sci Rep, 13, 20271, 10.1038/s41598-023-47396-y · DOI
  52. SPH Speer, 2024, Hyperscanning shows friends explore and strangers converge in conversation, Nat Commun, 15, 7781, 10.1038/s41467-024-51990-7 · DOI
  53. Z Néda, 2000, The sound of many hands clapping, Nature, 403, 849, 10.1038/35002660 · DOI
  54. L Su, 2014, Mapping tonotopic organization in human temporal cortex: representational similarity analysis in EMEG source space, Front Neurosci, 8, 368
  55. H Lee Masson, 2018, The multidimensional representational space of observed socio-affective touch experiences, Neuroimage, 175, 297, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.007 · DOI
  56. A Fournel, 2016, Multidimensional representation of odors in the human olfactory cortex, Hum Brain Mapp, 37, 2161, 10.1002/hbm.23164 · DOI
  57. T Charman, 2003, Why is joint attention a pivotal skill in autism?, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 358, 315, 10.1098/rstb.2002.1199 · DOI
  58. Q Moreau, 2024, Distinct social behavior and inter-brain connectivity in Dyads with autistic individuals, Soc Neurosci, 19, 124, 10.1080/17470919.2024.2379917 · DOI
  59. S Raffard, 2015, Social priming enhances interpersonal synchronization and feeling of connectedness towards schizophrenia patients, Sci Rep, 5, 8156, 10.1038/srep08156 · DOI
  60. M Varlet, 2014, Difficulty leading interpersonal coordination: towards an embodied signature of social anxiety disorder, Front Behav Neurosci, 8, 29, 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00029 · DOI
  61. J Peirce, 2019, PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy, Behav Res Methods, 51, 195, 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y · DOI
  62. R Oostenveld, 2001, The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements, Clin Neurophysiol, 112, 713, 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00527-7 · DOI
  63. R Oostenveld, 2011, FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data, Comput Intell Neurosci, 2011, 156869, 10.1155/2011/156869 · DOI · Paper page
  64. E Maris, 2007, Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data, J Neurosci Methods, 164, 177, 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Moerel, D., Grootswagers, T., Quek, G. L., Smit, S., & Varlet, M.
Venue
PLOS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-11-25
Volume
23
Issue
11
Pages
e3003479
ISSN
1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479
Cited by
4
References
5
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP220103047, DE230100380)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collaborative rule learning promotes interbrain information alignment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479
The paper
Moerel, D., Grootswagers, T., Quek, G. L., Smit, S., & Varlet, M. (2025). Collaborative rule learning promotes interbrain information alignment. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479