CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Action Observation and SynchronizationHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Autonomic synchrony induced by hyperscanning interoception during interpersonal synchronization tasks

Open access
Balconi, Michela, Allegretta, Roberta A., Angioletti, Laura·2023·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1200750PMC PMC10400890
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

According to previous research, people influence each other’s emotional states during social interactions via resonance mechanisms and coordinated autonomic rhythms. However, no previous studies tested if the manipulation of the interoceptive focus (focused attention on the breath for a given time interval) in hyperscanning during synchronized tasks may have an impact on autonomic synchrony. Thus, this study aims to assess the psychophysiological synchrony through autonomic measures recording during dyadic linguistic and motor synchronization tasks performed in two distinct interoceptive conditions: the focus and no focus on the breath condition. 26 participants coupled in 13 dyads were recruited. Individuals’ autonomic measures [electrodermal: skin conductance level and response (SCL, SCR); cardiovascular indices: heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV)] was continuously monitored during the experiment and correlational coefficients were computed to analyze dyads physiological synchrony. Inter-subject analysis revealed higher synchrony for HR, HRV, SCL, and SCR values in the focus compared to no focus condition during the motor synchronization task and in general more for motor than linguistic task. Higher synchrony was also found for HR, SCL, and SCR values during focus than no focus condition in linguistic task. Overall, evidence suggests that the manipulation of the interoceptive focus has an impact on the autonomic synchrony during distinct synchronization tasks and for different autonomic measures. Such findings encourage the use of hyperscanning paradigms to assess the effect of breath awareness practices on autonomic synchrony in ecological and real-time conditions involving synchronization.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This hyperscanning study tested whether focusing on one’s breath alters autonomic synchrony between dyads during motor and linguistic synchronization tasks. It found higher inter-subject coherence for HR, HRV, SCL, and SCR in the breath-focus condition, especially during motor synchronization.

Key findings

  • Significant Condition × Task interactions were reported for HR [F(1,12) = 9.45, p ≤ 0.01, ηp² = 0.452], HRV [F(1,12) = 9.34, p ≤ 0.01, ηp² = 0.41], SCL [F(1,12) = 8.56, p ≤ 0.01, ηp² = 0.38], and SCR [F(1,12) = 8.90, p ≤ 0.01, ηp² = 0.40].
  • For HR, HRV, SCL, and SCR, coherence was higher in the focus condition during the motor task than in the focus condition during the linguistic task and than in the no-focus condition for both tasks.
  • Higher HR, SCL, and SCR coherence was also found in the focus versus no-focus condition during the linguistic task.
  • The interoceptive manipulation check showed higher self-reported attention to breathing in the focus condition (M = 8.75, SD = 1.08) than in the no-focus condition (M = 5.97, SD = 1.54).

Methods

  • 26 university students (16 females; age mean = 25.41, SD = 0.12) were recruited by non-probabilistic convenience sampling and matched into 13 same-sex, age-matched dyads who had never met.
  • Dyads completed a 3-min motor finger-tapping synchronization task and a 3-min linguistic syllable synchronization task under two conditions: focus on the breath versus no focus on the breath, with task and condition randomized and counterbalanced.
  • Autonomic activity was continuously recorded (SCL, SCR, HR, HRV/SDNN), artifacts were removed, and inter-subject coherence was computed via partial correlation coefficients from the inverse covariance matrix; coherence values were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA with condition and task as within-factors.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the reduced number of dyads from convenience sampling limits reliability and that no power analysis was conducted because no reference population was available.
  • The paper states that respiratory measures were not tested, that future work should add an explicit social frame and a non-synchronization control condition, and that physiological synchrony plus subjective synchronization cannot fully explain positive or negative valence.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (13 dyads), homogeneous (university students, same-sex dyads, right-handed, no prior contemplative experience), which limits generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1200750

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 21 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    HRV coherence was higher in the focus condition than in the no focus condition during the motor task.

    “and compared to the no focus condition for both tasks {motor [F(1,12) = 8.45, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.40] and linguistic [F(1,12) = 0.94, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.43]}”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    SCL coherence was higher in the focus condition during the motor task than in the focus condition during the linguistic task.

    “An increase in coherence of SCL values was found by pairwise comparisons in the focus condition when participants performed the motor task compared to the focus condition while participants performed the linguistic task [F(1,12) = 7.04, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.35]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    HRV coherence was higher in the focus condition during the motor task than in the focus condition during the linguistic task.

    “Pairwise comparison revealed that HRV values increased in coherence in the focus condition when participants carried out the motor task compared to the focus condition while subjects performed the linguistic task [F(1,12) = 7.43, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Autonomic synchrony was generally higher during the motor synchronization task than during the linguistic synchronization task.

    “Inter-subject analysis revealed higher synchrony for HR, HRV, SCL, and SCR values in the focus compared to no focus condition during the motor synchronization task and in general more for motor than linguistic task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Inter-subject coherence for skin conductance response (SCR) was higher in the focus condition than in the no focus condition during the motor synchronization task.

    “Inter-subject analysis revealed higher synchrony for HR, HRV, SCL, and SCR values in the focus compared to no focus condition during the motor synchronization task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • May combine two claims. 4

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other significant effects were found for the HR index.

    “No other significant effects were found for the HR index.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    HR coherence was higher in the focus condition during the motor task than in the no focus condition during the linguistic task [F(1,12) = 8.14, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38].

    “compared to the no focus condition for both tasks {motor [F(1,12) = 7.76, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.37] and linguistic [F(1,12) = 8.14, p ≤ 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38]}”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other significant effects were found for HRV.

    “No other significant effects were found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other significant effects were found for the SCL and SCR indices.

    “No other significant effects were found for the SCL and SCR indices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other significant effects were found for the SCL index.

    “No other significant effects were found for the SCL index.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Focus on one's breathing increases the autonomic markers of togetherness and emotional engagement more than no focus on the breath condition and more in a motor synchronization rather than in a linguistic task.

    “our study showed that the focus on one’s breathing increases the autonomic markers of togetherness and emotional engagement more than in the no focus on the breath condition and more in a motor synchronization rather than in a linguistic task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Higher inter-subject hemodynamic coherence in the left prefrontal cortex occurred when dyads performed synchronization tasks with a social compared to no-social frame and concurrently focused their attention on IA.

    “Additionally, in a recent functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) hyperscanning study, it was observed a significantly higher inter subject hemodynamic coherence in the left prefrontal cortex (PFC) when dyads performed both the synchronization tasks with a social compared to no-social frame and concurrently focused their attention on IA (Balconi and Angioletti, 2023b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Balconi and Angioletti, 2023b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Interpersonal touch increased coupling of electrodermal activity between interacting partners.

    “For instance, Chatel-Goldman et al. (2014) found that interpersonal touch increased coupling of electrodermal activity between the interacting partners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chatel-Goldman et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy) gave its approval for this study.

    “The Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy) gave its approval for this study (2020 TD-a.a.2020–2021), which was conducted in conformity with the new version of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The task execution was randomized and counterbalanced for the type of the task and the condition to avoid order effect.

    “The task execution was randomized and counterbalanced for the type of the task and the condition to avoid order effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants in the focus condition reported higher average attention to breathing (M = 8.75; SD = 1.08) than in the no focus condition (M = 5.97; SD = 1.54).

    “In the focus condition, all participants’ average scores on the tasks were above 5 points (M = 8.75; SD = 1.08), whereas in the no focus condition, average scores were lower (M = 5.97; SD = 1.54).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    During social exchanges, individuals modify one another's states and behaviors through basic resonance mechanisms.

    “Literature demonstrated that, during social exchanges, individuals modify one other’s states and behaviors through basic resonance mechanisms (Golland et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Golland et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Trials with motor artifacts were removed from the analyses.

    “Trials with motor artifacts were removed from the analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    No power analysis was conducted in the absence of a population that could serve as a reference sample.

    “No power analysis was conducted in the absence of a population that could serve as a reference sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Bonferroni correction was used to reduce the potential bias of repeated comparisons.

    “Any significant interactions between simple effects were explored using pairwise comparisons for all ANOVA tests, and the Bonferroni correction was used to reduce the potential bias of repeated comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Attention to spontaneous breath influences autonomic reactivity in the context of empathy for pain.

    “The attention to one’s body signal for a given time interval is an interoceptive dimension known as Interoceptive Attentiveness (IA; Schulz, 2016), that has been formerly operationalized as the attention on spontaneous breath and it was shown to influence autonomic reactivity in the context of empathy for pain (Angioletti and Balconi, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Schulz, 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Angioletti and Balconi, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Interoceptive attention on spontaneous breath might impact interpersonal neural synchronization during social dynamics.

    “By using such basic synchronization tasks, previous hyperscanning studies performed in the field of social interoception (the field of studies investigating the relation between interoception and social processes) demonstrated that the interoceptive attention on spontaneous breath might impact interpersonal neural synchronization during social dynamics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Client alliance and therapist assessment of the progress of a therapeutic session positively correlate with physiological synchrony between clients and psychotherapists.

    “More interestingly, a recent study showed that client alliance and the therapist assessment of the progress of a therapeutic session positively correlate with the physiological synchrony between clients and psychotherapists (Tschacher and Meier, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tschacher and Meier, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Physiological synchronization of different autonomic indices is observed in both motor and linguistic synchronization tasks.

    “In interpersonal autonomic coupling studies, a physiological synchronization of different autonomic indices is observed in both motor and linguistic synchronization tasks (Palumbo et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palumbo et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The coherence between dyad components for autonomic variables may be derived by comparable motor planning.

    “Thus, the coherence between the dyad components for the autonomic variables may be derived by a comparable motor planning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The brain regulates cardiovascular correlates both before and throughout any motor action.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a mirror game, physiological synchrony in HR was significantly correlated with synchronized movement, subjectively reported togetherness, and high HR.

    “Noy et al. (2015), through a “mirror game” in which participants put their hands together and moved them in synchrony, showed that physiological synchrony in HR was significantly correlated with synchronized movement, subjectively reported togetherness, and high HR.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Noy et al. (2015) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The IA manipulation effect and focus on the breath practices can have a greater impact on motor synchronization dynamics.

    “suggesting that the IA manipulation effect and focus on the breath practices can have a greater impact on motor synchronization dynamics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Inter-individual physiological synchrony is identified during dyadic conditions requiring verbal or linguistic synchronization.

    “inter-individual physiological synchrony was also identified during dyadic conditions requiring verbal or linguistic synchronization (Palumbo et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palumbo et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding that autonomic synchrony effect was mainly evident for motor compared to linguistic synchronization confirmed evidence observed in the context of interoception manipulation at the neural level.

    “this finding confirmed the evidence observed in the context of interoception manipulation at the neural level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Physiological synchrony in HRV was found during choir singing of a hymn and mantra.

    “Vickhoff et al. (2013) found physiological synchrony in HRV during choir singing of a hymn and mantra.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vickhoff et al. (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    No power analysis was conducted for this study.

    “no power analysis was conducted in the absence of a population that could serve as a reference sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The motor > linguistic result is explained by the connection between breathing and motor coordination.

    “This result was explained by the connection between breathing and motor coordination”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
27 of 27

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No previous research explored the impact of manipulating attention to one's body signals on autonomic synchrony while dyads perform synchronization tasks.

    “However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous research explored the impact of the manipulation of the attention to one’s body signals on autonomic synchrony while dyads are performing synchronization tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The brain regulates cardiovascular correlates both before and throughout any motor action.

    “It is worth noticing that the brain regulates the cardiovascular correlates both before and throughout any motor action.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior study provided autonomic evidence in the field of social interoception.

    “this study provided the first autonomic evidence in the field of social interoception”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Inter-subject coherence indices are valid markers of physiological synchronization.

    “the reliability of inter-subject coherence indices as valid markers of physiological synchronization”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social tasks performed by participants might not be necessary for interpersonal physiological synchrony to emerge.

    “here we show that such tasks—often conflated with the visual exchange of social cues—might not be necessary for the synchrony to emerge.”

    From Interpersonal Synchronization of Autonomic Physiology via Mere Visual Contact (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

    The Methods (§2.2; page unavailable) describe participants synchronizing finger tapping or speech while able to see their partner. The Discussion (§4; page unavailable) proposes a future control condition without synchronization, but does not test whether physiological synchrony emerges without social tasks. The copy therefore does not establish that those tasks might be unnecessary. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The EEG hyperscanning study is cited as the fNIRS paper

    Minor

    The text identifies Balconi and Angioletti (2023b) as a previous EEG hyperscanning study, but the reference list identifies 2023b as a study of hemodynamic coherence. The listed EEG hyperscanning paper is labeled 2023a.

  • Two different SCL sampling frequencies are stated

    Minor

    The recording methods state that SCL was sampled at both 2 kHz and 20 Hz, without describing a change in sampling rate.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Balconi, M., Allegretta, R. A., & Angioletti, L.
Affiliations
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Corresponding author
Angioletti, Laura
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-07-21
Volume
17
Pages
1200750-1200750
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnhum.2023.1200750
PMC
PMC10400890
OpenAlex
W4385069479
Semantic Scholar
276a5bd7e821e9df373a6eb19489c5ee29305272
Cited by
13
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
hyperscanning, interoception, interpersonal synchrony, motor synchronization, heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, skin conductance response, breath awareness, emotional resonance, dyadic interaction

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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