How do two brains interact with each other? Neuroscientist Lauren Silbert, PhD, is researching the neural links at the core of human communication. In addition to her research work, she’s also producing innovative educational curricula and creating interactive public installations that showcase her research findings. I spoke with Lauren Silbert ahead of her talk tomorrow night at the New York Society for Ethical Culture about the phenomenon of synchronicity, communication differences between humans and animals, and her creative installation work…
How does a neuroscientist explain the phenomenon of synchronicity?
The phenomenon of synchronicity (within neuroscience of communication fields) emerges when the neural processes in one brain are coupled to the neural processes in another brain. We call this brain-to-brain coupling, where the perceptual system of one brain can be coupled to the motor system of another via the transmission of a signal through the environment. Just as sensory stimuli are transmitted to the brain as colors or sounds and then interpreted in various ways across brains, interpersonal interactions are received as incoming stimuli, decoded, filtered through networks, and interpreted. If we see things the same way as someone else, our brains are likely performing more similar calculations than if we see very different versions of the same stimuli.
The word phenomenon in your question, however, is integral because it supposes a degree of brain-to-brain coupling necessary to be categorized as in-sync. We experience the world dynamically, not in isolation, and as such synchronicity as defined above occurs in all communication to various degrees. We can quantify brain-to-brain coupling; we cannot quantify the phenomenon of synchronicity. In all forms, though, synchronicity via brain-to-brain coupling leads to complex joint behaviors that could not have emerged in isolation.
Can two people ever think alike?
People actually think much more alike than we tend to experience. An influential study by my advisor, Uri Hasson, showed that brains of different individuals while freely watching a movie exhibit a highly significant degree of synchronized brain responses across the human cortex.
This tendency to act in unison while viewing complex scenes implies that a large extent of the human cortex is stereotypically responsive to naturalistic audiovisual stimuli. In other words, we share the same conscious experience from the same sensory stimulus.
There is, however, a discrepancy amongst people we interact with in terms of successful communication, which suggests that thinking alike runs along a spectrum. My research has shown that greater understanding between interlocutors results from more similar thought patterns, implying that the more you think like someone, the more you understand that person.
Given that, however, if by ‘alike’ you mean ‘exactly the same’, no. Our brains develop largely via feedback from the environment and so creating identical experiences in identical twins would be the way to accomplish that.
Do you find that animals exhibit a different neurochemical response when communicating amongst their species? Can two birds, for example, communicate on the same wavelength?
Data across various animal species show that the development of communication is fundamentally embedded in social interactions, which suggests that communication in some animal species requires a similar necessity for interactive brain-to-brain coupling as humans.
Your question with birds is a great example, as songbirds seem to learn much more effectively in social contexts. Male cowbirds learn to sing by watching the reactions of females: females produce small wing movements when they like elements of a song; wing movements reinforce particular segments of the male’s song; and this interaction ultimately leads the male to sing a song most attractive to the female. Communication appears to progress through feedback until similar states are reached and successful coupling is recognized.
Another species, turn-taking marmosets, have been shown to act as loosely coupled oscillators: they entrain to each other such that when one increases his voice, the other does as well. If we assume a biological basis to all behavior, social species who interact with discretion have some measure of coupling that informs their decision-making process. How similar that process of interaction looks to the human process, however, is not fully understood.
I don’t know if I’m allowed to express personal opinion outside of the scientific canon, but if I can, I always thought it strange that we assume such limited communicative capabilities of other species because they don’t present in the same form as human linguistic structures. We don’t recognize syntax in dolphin communication, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just as birds recognize visual patterns outside of the human UV field of vision, perhaps other forms of language have complexities outside of our perceptive abilities. Comparative neuroanatomy seems to suggest as much.
Your bio states that you’re also an “installation scientist.” What are some examples of installations you’ve designed and what drew you to create installations?
I passionately believe in the role science can play in uniting all people around curiosity and shared knowledge. I began creating installations to promote understanding and communication of science across society through tangible, accessible, and fun, scientifically-based interactive experiences.
One of my first installations, the Compatibility Racer, is an interactive brain-robotics ‘car’ that allows participants to physically explore the neurobiology underlying interpersonal communication – what does it feel like to be ‘on the same wavelength’? The car is fueled by successful communication between two people riding together via EEG technology, moving faster with increased brainwave synchronicity. Participants of all ages and backgrounds leave the experience with an exhilarating interest in understanding their shared biology.
I am just in the process of returning to social media, so many more examples will be available in the coming weeks for anyone interested.
As a fellow New Yorker, where’s your favorite “cool” place to visit in NYC? Where do you go for inspiration?
Ah, NYC, where do I start? I guess I have to start with The New York Hall of Science. The excited and unadulterated curiosity of children exploring through the lens of brain development and educational intervention inspires most of my work, and there’s no place more accessible and deliberate than NYSCI. I bring my kids there as often as I can. There’s the added inspiration of above-ground subways (you have to take the 7 train to Flushing) that provide exciting perspectives of our city.
Next, as a nature lover with a background in ecology, I frequent all borough’s botanical gardens to remember to breathe. There is so much information about life through bugs and plants to be found there, and incredibly thoughtful programming. The Science Barge on the Hudson River is another fantastic project worth everyone’s time in my opinion. The Scientific Controversies series at Pioneer Works in Red Hook, Brooklyn, is outstanding, and Pioneer Works itself is an incredibly inspiring space with exceptional programming. I visit the New York Earth Room by Dia in Soho probably once a year, and I’m a big fan of NPR’s Greene Space events.
I could go on and on and on. The beauty of NYC, I think, is in the thoughtfulness of the countless endeavors constantly being pursued and realized, from art to science to music to spaces to activism. I feel grateful to live amongst such creativity, grateful to raise my children within it, and inspired by it all the time.
Meet Dr. Lauren Silbert this Thursday, January 23, for a free talk at the New York Society of Ethical Culture. Details here.