Using Communication to Modulate Neural Synchronization in Teams

Throughout training and team performance, teams may be assessed based on their communication patterns to identify which behaviors contributed to the team’s performance; however, this process of establishing meaning in communication is burdensome and time consuming despite the low monetary cost. A current topic in team research is developing covert measures, which are easier to analyze in real-time, to identify team processes as they occur during team performance; however, little is known about how overt and covert measures of team process relate to one another. In this study, we investigated the relationship between overt (communication) and covert (neural) measures of team process by manipulating the interaction partner (participant or experimenter) team members worked with and the type of task (decision-making or action-based) teams performed to assess their effects on team neural synchronization (measured as neurodynamic entropy) and communication (measured as both flow and content). The results indicated that the type of task affected how the teams structured their communication but had unpredictable effects on the neural synchronization of the team when averaged across the task session. The interaction partner did not affect team neural synchronization when averaged. However, there were significant relationships when communication and neural processes were examined over time between the neurodynamic entropy and the communication flow time series due to both the type of task and the interaction partner. Specifically, significant relationships across time were observed when participants were interacting with the other participant, during the second task trial, and across different regions of the cortex depending on the type of task being performed. The findings from the time series analyses suggest that factors that are previously known to affect communication (interaction partner and task type) also structure the relationship between team communication and neural synchronization—cross-level effects—but only when examined across time. Future research should consider these factors when developing new conceptualizations of team process measurement for measuring team performance over time.

[1]  Blake W. Johnson,et al.  Mu rhythm modulation during observation of an object-directed grasp. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[2]  Melanie J. Martin,et al.  Cross-Level Effects Between Neurophysiology and Communication During Team Training , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Michelle N. Lumicao,et al.  EEG correlates of task engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks. , 2007, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[4]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Neural signatures of team coordination are revealed by multifractal analysis , 2014, Social neuroscience.

[5]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Interactive Team Cognition , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Asif A. Ghazanfar,et al.  The Natural Statistics of Audiovisual Speech , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  Monisha Pasupathi,et al.  The development of narrative identity in late adolescence and emergent adulthood: the continued importance of listeners. , 2009, Developmental psychology.

[8]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Toward a quantitative description of the neurodynamic organizations of teams , 2014, Social neuroscience.

[9]  Jamie C. Gorman,et al.  Learning to tie well with others: bimanual versus intermanual performance of a highly practised skill , 2015, Ergonomics.

[10]  F Grizzi,et al.  Fractal analysis. , 2000, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  A. Puce,et al.  Neuronal oscillations and visual amplification of speech , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  S. Makeig,et al.  Imaging human EEG dynamics using independent component analysis , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[13]  Christopher Zegras,et al.  From Understanding to Action , 2004 .

[14]  M. Pasupathi,et al.  when the fACts just don't Add uP: the frACtAl nAture of ConversAtionAl stories , 2008 .

[15]  Rodrigo Quian Quiroga,et al.  Nonlinear multivariate analysis of neurophysiological signals , 2005, Progress in Neurobiology.

[16]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Modeling the neurodynamic organizations and interactions of teams , 2016, Social neuroscience.

[17]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  Brain-to-brain entrainment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[18]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Healthcare Teams Neurodynamically Reorganize When Resolving Uncertainty , 2016, Entropy.

[19]  K. Torre,et al.  Fractal analyses for 'short' time series: A re-assessment of classical methods , 2006 .

[20]  Jamie C. Gorman,et al.  Understanding and Modeling Teams As Dynamical Systems , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[21]  Chaozhe Zhu,et al.  Neural Synchronization during Face-to-Face Communication , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  D. Poeppel,et al.  Auditory Cortex Tracks Both Auditory and Visual Stimulus Dynamics Using Low-Frequency Neuronal Phase Modulation , 2010, PLoS biology.

[23]  M. de Vega,et al.  Understanding action language modulates oscillatory mu and beta rhythms in the same way as observing actions , 2013, Brain and Cognition.

[24]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[25]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Are Neurodynamic Organizations A Fundamental Property of Teamwork? , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[26]  K. Shadan,et al.  Available online: , 2012 .

[27]  U. Hasson,et al.  Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Cornelius Weiller,et al.  Interindividual synchronization of brain activity during live verbal communication , 2014, Behavioural Brain Research.

[29]  M. Pasupathi,et al.  On telling the whole story: facts and interpretations in autobiographical memory narratives from childhood through midadolescence. , 2010, Developmental psychology.

[30]  Ronald H. Stevens,et al.  Measuring Real-Time Team Cognition During Team Training , 2020, Hum. Factors.

[31]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[32]  A. Ghazanfar,et al.  Is neocortex essentially multisensory? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Ernesto Pereda,et al.  Assessment of changing interdependencies between human electroencephalograms using nonlinear methods , 2001 .

[34]  Jamie C. Gorman,et al.  Deviations from mirroring in interpersonal multifrequency coordination when visual information is occluded , 2017, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Michael T. Turvey,et al.  Average phase difference theory and 1∶1 phase entrainment in interlimb coordination , 1992, Biological Cybernetics.

[36]  A. Edwards,et al.  Sync-how order emerges from chaos in the universe, nature, and daily life , 2005 .

[37]  J. Kelso,et al.  The coordination dynamics of social neuromarkers , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[38]  John-Dylan Haynes,et al.  Content-specific coordination of listeners' to speakers' EEG during communication , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[39]  K. Shockley,et al.  Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Tamara Vanderwal,et al.  Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses , 2019, NeuroImage.

[41]  U. Hasson,et al.  On the Same Wavelength: Predictable Language Enhances Speaker–Listener Brain-to-Brain Synchrony in Posterior Superior Temporal Gyrus , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.