Interview with Drs. Chenbo Wang and Xianchun Li

3 min read

A group of scientists in East China Normal University has published a paper earlier this month titled “Dynamic interpersonal neural synchronization underlying pain-induced cooperation in females” in HBM. They studied how pain affected cooperation between female students using fNIRS hyperscanning. We interviewed the authors Chenbo Wang and Xianchun Li and they are generous in sharing their experience about this study.

Chenbo Wang
Chenbo Wang

Xianchun Li
Xianchun Li

Congratulations on your recent paper in HBM.

1. What motivated you to study the effect of pain on cooperation? And why to study female only?
Response: Dr. Chenbo Wang is interested in how physical pain influences human cognition and social behaviors. In one of his previous studies, results indicated that acute pain promotes cooperative behavior in social interaction (Wang et al., 2018). On the other hand, Dr. Xianchun Li’s previous works provided an interpersonal neural mechanism of cooperative behavior (Cheng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2017). Thus, it was a perfect collaboration between the two teams that allowed us to further elucidate the underlying neural basis of pain-induced cooperation.
Female participants only were recruited due to that in previous study, an increased effect of pain on cooperative behavior was observed only in females but not in males (Wang et al., 2018). Although gender differences in pain perception and prosocial behavior was well-documented, we realized that having also males measured would then have made it possible to check the measured results if they comply with this previous finding.

2. 33 pairs of participants is not a small number. How long did it take to collect the data?
Response: It took nearly five months to collect all the data, from the fall of 2016 to spring 2017. Before that, we spent two months to set up the experimental equipment.

3. Compared to 1 person experiment, what are the unique challenges in hyperscanning experiment?
Response: One challenge is related to the experimental design. The paradigm chosen for an experiment should be subtle to interpersonal interaction, either socially or mentally. It should be very cautious to interpret the meaning of the observed interpersonal neural synchronization. Another challenge is regarded to conducting the experiment. It should be verified that the two participants understand the task similarly and perform it on the same page.

4. Why did you not use fMRI hyperscanning?
Response: In our experiment, each pair of two participants sat face-to-face during the cooperative task, which ensured a real social interaction that they performed the task in each other’s presence. However, this real social interaction would be prevented if the two participants lay in two separate fMRI scanners.

5. What was participants’ reaction when they found this would be a “painful” experiment? Do you have any particular example?
Response: Before decided to participate, it was informed that they would receive by a half-chance a moderate pain induced by capsaicin cream. With this expectation, most participants controlled themselves well throughout the whole experiment, although they would feel a little bit annoying.

6. How long did it take to analyze the data?
Response: It took nearly six months to analyze the data.

7. Compared to single subject data analysis, what are the unique challenges in hyperscanning data analysis?
Response: Hyperscanning data analysis depends on an estimator to quantify brain-to-brain synchrony. The most frequently used method is wavelet transform coherence (WTC). Different with that of single subject data analysis, the amplitude of the complex coherence value from two participants is calculated as an index of interpersonal neural synchronization (INS). This method requires choosing a frequency band of interest in which the task-related brain-to-brain synchrony is expected to occur based on previous studies and visual inspection of the data. So how to choose the best and accurate frequency band and how to explain it are unique challenges in hyperscanning data analysis.

8. What software did you use to create figure 5? If you used in-house program, do you mind sharing it?
Response: We applied to an open-source software package called circularGraph, based on MATLAB® (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts) scripts. It can be downloaded for free at https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/fileexchange/48576-circulargraph

9. From the initial submission to the acceptance of the paper, how long did it take? Were the reviewers friendly?
Response: It took 2 months to get the first revision and in total 4 months to receive the notice of acceptance.
Both reviewers provided us with positive comments. One reviewer remarked our experimental paradigm (pain + cognitive task + fNIRS hyperscanning) as being novel. The other reviewer commented that this work could make good contributions to the field. The reviewers raised some concerns regarding to the experimental settings and the procedure, the approach of preprocessing, and the method of FDR correction, all of which significantly helped improve the manuscript. For example, we conducted additional artifact rejection procedures (PCA method) to remove flow oscillations or other global systematic components and reanalyzed our data.

10. Can you use one sentence to summarize your finding in this study?
Response: When a dyad in painful state performing a cooperation task, their cooperation rate was improved across time; simultaneously, the interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) occurred successively at bilateral prefrontal cortex and right parietal cortex, along with increased fronto-parietal associations.

11. What is your plan for future research?
Response: There are three lines of future research. First, to replicate this finding by using EEG-based hyperscanning technique, providing extra information with ERP components and frequency band of high temporal resolution. Second, as we proposed in the current study that individuals in pain was “motivated” to cooperate; we were particularly interested in how pain would modulate neural activities in brain regions including ventral striatum and medial prefrontal cortex in the motivation and reward system, with fMRI technique. Third, it is encouraged to critically compare the effect of acute pain with chronic pain, by using the identical cooperative task.

第十九期 fNIRS Journal Club 通知 2021/05/29,9:30am

美国普渡大学童云杰助理教授,将为大家讲解他们组最近被接受的一篇使用近红外相位信息研究脑血流变化的文章。热烈欢迎大家参与讨论。 时间: 北京时间2021年5月29日上午9:30地点: https://zoom.com房间号: 846 8391 7517密码: 805190 童云杰教授简介:普渡大学 生物医学工程助理教授、博士生导师。主攻方向是多模态脑成像, 包括核磁,fNIRS, EEG。关注脑功能及生理信号的提取与研究。发表论文九十余篇,引用上千次(H-index = 20)。 童教授要讲解的文章如下: Liang Z, Tian H, Yang HC, Arimitsu T, Takahashi...
Xu Cui
12 sec read

第十八期 fNIRS Journal Club 视频

北京时间2021年4月25日10点,北京师范大学的朱朝喆教授为大家讲解了他们最近几年在经颅脑图谱(Transcranial brain Atlas) 方面做的工作。视频如下: Youtube: https://youtu.be/EhYPuBPQ5uI Youku: 该视频在优酷上传后被优酷屏蔽,不清楚什么原因。申诉无效。
Xu Cui
3 sec read

第七届全国近红外光谱脑功能成像学术会议

会议日期:2021年5月22日-24日会议地点:天津师范大学 一、 会议简介       近红外光谱脑功能成像(fNIRS)具有设备购买与使用成本低、可在自然环境条件下使用、具有较高的时间分辨率和空间定位能力等特点,受到了脑科学研究的高度重视。“近红外光谱脑功能成像学术会议”是由北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室朱朝喆教授发起并组织的全国性学术会议。已连续成功举办六届,共吸引全国近百家高校、科研院所及医院的六百余名学者参加。该会议已成为国内规模和影响力最大的fNIRS脑成像学术活动。       本届会议由北京师范大学与天津师范大学联合主办。会议将延用往届会议将学术报告与研究方法工作坊相结合的模式。学术报告模块(5月22日周六)将邀请心理学与认知神经科学领域、基础与临床医学领域以及工程技术领域知名学者汇报其fNIRS最新研究成果;工作坊模块(5月23-24日)由fNIRS领域一线研究者系统讲授fNIRS成像原理、fNIRS实验设计、fNIRS数据分析与统计、fNIRS论文写作以及fNIRS前沿技术等。除理论讲授外,还设置了fNIRS空间定位与数据分析操作(NIRS-KIT软件)环节,此外还安排充足的研讨答疑时间以便与会人员交流互动。       具体日程与详细内容等最新消息请关注后续通知,可通过天津师范大学心理部网站http://psych.tjnu.edu.cn/或北京师范大学国家重点实验室网站http://brain.bnu.edu.cn/,或者扫描下方二维码关注微信公众号-“fNIRS脑成像实验室”查阅更新信息,期盼在天津师范大学与您相聚! 二、会议组织机构 主办单位:教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院、天津师范大学心理学部、北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室会议主席:白学军、朱朝喆组织委员会:赵春健、杨邵峰、侯鑫、曹正操 三、说明1.        学术报告模块注册费:人民币500元/人;工作坊模块注册费:人民币2500元/人。发票为电子发票,内容均为:“会议费”。两个模块各自独立收费,参会者可根据自己需要进行选择。2.        注册费包括各自模块的资料费、午餐费;其他费用自理。3.        会议报告人免除会议模块注册费,其他费用请自理。4.       ...
Xu Cui
18 sec read

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading