Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experimental design. A, Speaker design. The speaker was invited to watch an emotional video and shared the stories in the video by narrating. B, Listener design. The listener was asked to listen to the story of the video through the speaker’s narration and allowed to recall the story which the speaker shared. C, The task in The Speaker Speaking and The Listener Listening. The specific procedure of sharing stories.
- Figure 2.
Behavioral results in the happy and sad group. A, The recall quality (δ value) is shown for happy (Happy-Neutral) and sad (Sad-Neutral) emotions. B, The rating of interpersonal closeness is shown for happy (Happy-Neutral) and sad (Sad-Neutral) groups; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 3.
PLV of different groups [happy (Happy-Neutral) and sad (Sad-Neutral)] in sharing matchup (The Speaker Speaking-The Listener Listening). A, The PLV in the θ band at the F site. B, The PLV in the θ band at the F site. All after FDR correction; **p < 0.01.
- Figure 4.
Correlation between behavioral results and frontal IBS. A, Correlation between the recall quality (δ value) and the PLV in the θ band (δ value). The frontal PLV in the θ band positively correlated with the recall quality of dyads. B, We found the left TP PLV in the θ band was not significantly correlated with recall quality of dyads. C, Correlation between interpersonal closeness and the PLV in the θ band. The frontal PLV in the θ band positively correlated with interpersonal closeness of dyads. D, The left TP PLV in the θ band was nonsignificant correlated with interpersonal closeness of dyads; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 5.
Frontal IBS in the θ band can effectively predict interpersonal closeness. A, Regression predicted by SVR between real value and predict value. B, The r value is calculated as a metric of prediction interpersonal closeness. The significance level (threshold at p < 0.05) is calculated by comparing the r value from the correct labels (dotted line) with 10,000 randomization samples with shuffled labels (blue bars); ***p < 0.001.
Tables
Speaker number Happy Neutral Sad Average score 101 12 13 10 11.67 102 11 21 18 16.67 103 21 18 25 21.33 104 16 16 20 17.33 105 19 10 25 18.00 106 18 17 12 15.67 107 25 23 26 24.67 108 20 16 12 16.00 109 18 19 15 17.33 110 10 19 11 13.33 The rater has included an overall comprehension level out of 10 and the total score for each subject was out of 30.
- Table 2
PLV at different regions and in the θ band between happy and sad group (FDR corrected)
ROIs PLV of the happy group (mean ± SD) PLV of the sad group (mean ± SD) t d df p (corrected) F 0.32 ± 0.10 0.21 ± 0.09 3.22 1.14 30 0.009 FC 0.47 ± 0.09 0.45 ± 0.15 0.47 0.17 30 0.960 P 0.35 ± 0.09 0.32 ± 0.11 0.81 0.29 30 0.854 Right TP 0.01 ± 0.05 0.00 ± 0.09 0.39 0.14 30 0.839 Left TP 0.39 ± 0.10 0.27 ± 0.08 3.87 1.36 30 0.006 O 0.02 ± 0.10 0.01 ± 0.05 0.94 0.11 30 0.752 F, frontal site; FC, frontal-central site; P, parietal site; right TP, right temporoparietal site; left TP, left temporoparietal site; O, occipital site.
Extended Data 1
The code used in the study. Download Extended Data 1, ZIP file.
In this issue
