Recent debates regarding the primacy of social interaction versus individual cognition appear to be caused by the lack of an integrative account of the multiple scales at play. We suggest that reconciling individual autonomy and dyadic interactive viewpoints requires the taking into account of different time scales (e.g., development, learning) and levels of organization (e.g., genetic, neural, behavioral, social). We argue that this challenge requires the joint development of tools for two-body and second person neuroscience, along with the theoretical concepts and methods of coordination dynamics and systems biology. Such a research program may be particularly fruitful in deciphering complex socio-developmental diseases that are known to involve alterations on multiple levels.
The ontogeny of social cognition: a chicken-egg issue?
Despite a propensity to interact with others, our ability to socialize seems neither given nor fixed once and for all (Dumas, 2011). As Sheets-Johnstone (2011) has pointed out “we come into the world moving; we are precisely not stillborn.” The question of the ontogeny of social cognition (mirror neurons included) is grounded in our propensity to move. This primacy of movement can even be observed before birth: motorneurons appear well before their sensory counterparts in embryo; a large repertoire of spontaneous (thus self-organized) movements—e.g., making a fist, kicking, sucking—already exists (Kelso, 2002; Piontelli, 2010). Even twin fetuses demonstrate distinctive movements directed to each other (Castiello et al., 2010). At this stage, the “social events” are essentially movements. Does this mean, however, that there is no element of “social cognition” in such encounters? We think not.
Behavioral coordination acts as a powerful linkage between persons, even early in life. Infants are sensitive to contingent movements of the mother (Nadel et al., 1999) and the first dyadic interactions already exhibit co-regulation, “a continuous mutual adjustment of actions and intentions” (Fogel and Garvey, 2007). The disposition of human and monkey newborns to imitate (Meltzoff and Moore, 1983; Kugiumutzakis, 1993; Nagy et al., 2005; Ferrari et al., 2006; Soussignan et al., 2011) is not due to a passive coupling of perception and action. Rather it is an active attempt to adapt and gradually refine their own movements with respect to others. When imitated, human infants and newborn macaques display affiliative behavior toward the imitator (Paukner et al., 2009), as do low-functioning children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Nadel et al., 2000). The two facets of imitation, imitate and be imitated, constitute dual roles that can be traded, thereby allowing turn-taking (Nadel-Brulfert and Baudonnière, 1982). All that is needed is anticipation of the partner's next movement.
Here it seems we arrive at a cross-road: key ingredients of social cognition already appear to be present very early. Co-regulation of synchrony, anticipation of the other's intentions, joint attention on a physical target, are central facets of social interaction. Does this mean they all emerge from the developing Mirror Neuron System (MNS)? Even if the early capacity to couple perception and action is associated with a proto MNS (Lepage and Théoret, 2007), we appear to be confronted with a circular logic problem: you need a MNS for social interaction but you need to interact to form a MNS. Although there is limited evidence for mirror neurons in early development (Catmur, 2013), sensorimotor experience may indeed be key to creating mirror neuron responses through Hebbian learning (Keysers and Perrett, 2004; see also Allen and Williams, 2011). See also the epigenetic view of Ferrari et al. (2013).
The idea that the MNS underlies not only motor exchanges but also high-level social cognition is now challenged by the proposal of a complementary role for the “mentalizing network” (Keysers and Gazzola, 2007; Uddin et al., 2007; Sperduti et al., 2014). A main task is to decipher possible top-down and bottom-up processes in social cognition. Such an endeavor requires, at the very least, joint investigation of behavioral and neural dynamics during real social exchanges (Hari and Kujala, 2009; Schilbach, 2014).
The rise of two-body and second-person neuroscience
Although social neuroscience has gathered a lot of data on how individual human beings perceive social stimuli, a truly interactive social neuroscience still lags behind. The community seems to have reached a consensus on the importance of investigating social situations that involve reciprocal exchange and mutual engagement (Hari and Kujala, 2009; Schilbach et al., 2013). Technological developments such as hyperscanning (Tognoli et al., 2007; Dumas et al., 2010; Babiloni and Astolfi, 2012; Hasson et al., 2012; Konvalinka and Roepstorff, 2012) and human-machine interfaces (Kelso et al., 2009; Pfeiffer et al., 2011) have greatly helped operationalize various aspects of real-time social interaction, thereby narrowing the gap between what we know about off-line and on-line social cognition (Schilbach, 2014). The former not only involve the same brain structures identified in research on isolated individuals (Sperduti et al., 2014); the brain dynamics vary according to social context, e.g., spontaneous vs. instructed interaction (Dumas et al., 2012a; Guionnet et al., 2012; Sänger et al., 2012) and social role, e.g., leaders vs. followers (Dumas et al., 2012a; Sänger et al., 2013; Konvalinka et al., 2014).
A further challenge concerns the structure and timing of inter-individual coordination and its relationship with intra-individual processes. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) hyperscanning first showed strong anatomical and functional similarities across different individuals responding to the same perception, especially if it is social (Hasson et al., 2004). This finding extends to interactive contexts where inter-brain synchronization emerges in multiple frequency bands (Dumas et al., 2010; Müller et al., 2013). The related symmetrical and asymmetrical inter-brain patterns reflect how social interaction goes beyond a simple mirroring of the other and relies both on grasping other individuals' motor goals and inferring their intentions (Nadel and Dumas, 2014). Moreover, unlike intra-brain dynamics which primarily involves high frequency rhythms, the inter-brain dynamics appear to operate at lower frequencies (Müller et al., 2013). Thus, the temporal interplay between brain networks involved in social interaction, such as the so-called mirror and mentalizing systems, may be modulated by dynamics at the dyadic level, as in turn-taking (Wilson and Wilson, 2005). Moreover, social cognition cannot be understood only on the bases of intra- or inter-personal dynamics but rather in their common hyper-brain space including both intra- and inter-brain coupling dynamics (e.g., Montague et al., 2002; De Vico Fallani et al., 2010; Sänger et al., 2012, 2013; Müller et al., 2013).
Social dynamics as a bridge between scales
Cognition is constantly evolving during interactions with the environment and others. In order to sustain covariation, members of a social interaction must engage in active co-regulation (Fogel, 1993) and co-anticipation (Nadel and Dumas, 2014), potentially leading to the co-ownership of the action (Dumas et al., 2012a). Such genuine sharing of the interaction with others has been proposed as participatory sense-making (De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2007) where social interaction plays a constitutive role for individual cognition (De Jaegher, 2009; Froese et al., 2014). The chicken-egg paradox here vanishes since both interactive and non-interactive mechanisms co-develop and mutually shape each other's development (Di Paolo and De Jaegher, 2012). Although still debated (Gallotti and Frith, 2013), this proposal is now supported by both modeling (Froese and Di Paolo, 2010; Froese et al., 2013) and experimental research (Auvray et al., 2009; Froese et al., 2014). In studies that have assessed the emergence of collective intelligence through dialog (Bahrami et al., 2010; Bang et al., 2014) interaction has been shown to constrain individual information processing (Fusaroli et al., 2014).
Social cognition thus relies on a braiding of neural, behavioral, and social processes (Hari and Kujala, 2009; Kelso et al., 2013). Neurobiological models of socio-cognitive functions have already been proposed (Gallese et al., 2004; Keysers and Perrett, 2004; Friston et al., 2011), though the dynamical components of human interaction are still largely missing (Adolphs, 2003). The theoretical and empirical framework of coordination dynamics has shown that neural, behavioral, and social scales may be studied and understood from a common perspective (Kelso, 1995; Kelso et al., 2009, 2013). As in other theories that aim to elaborate mathematical formalisms for cognition (e.g., Tononi, 2008; Friston, 2010), the objective of coordination dynamics is to identify general principles, the mechanistic realizations of which may be found in a variety of different systems at multiple levels of description. To be more than just words, coordination dynamics had to establish experimentally that criterial features of self-organization (e.g., order parameters, control parameters, stability, instability) actually existed in human behavior and that they could be mapped explicitly on to a theoretical model of the self-organizing dynamics. Then it had to show how information (e.g., about goals, intentions, the environment, etc.) shapes and is shaped by the self-organizing dynamics. Coordination dynamics relies on the same concepts and mathematical formalisms across different time scales and organizational levels and thus potentially offers inroads into a multi-scale account of social cognition.
In physics, multi-scale approaches have already uncovered universal principles, especially when matter undergoes phase transitions (Wilson, 1979). At the neural level, non-linear cross-scale interactions have been demonstrated experimentally (Le Van Quyen, 2011; see also Plenz and Niebur, 2014). In social neuroscience, nonlinearities are omnipresent in the underlying neural and social dynamics. Since functional networks display similar behavior across time-scales (Kelso, 1995; Bressler and Tognoli, 2006), a parsimonious account may be possible. Beyond the quest for parsimony and semantic clarity, having a mathematical formalism enables one to ask computationally relevant questions. For example, in the case of social neuroscience, neurocomputational modeling shows that the anatomical structure of the human brain favors both the complexity of intra-individual dynamics and the coupling in inter-individual dynamics (Dumas et al., 2012b). Regarding the debate about the constitutive role of social interaction, future computational studies can quantify macro-to-micro causal effects ranging from dyadic to individual processes (Hoel et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Social interaction challenges the boundaries between the field of cognitive science and how to divide observations across distinct time scales and organizational levels. Social neuroscience is taking up this challenge at both theoretical and methodological levels. Here we have argued that three major dimensions are of potential significance: integrating a developmental perspective, investigating real-time social interaction with a two-body or second person neuroscience, and adopting a multi-scale approach through complex systems' perspectives, in particular the concepts, methods and tools of coordination dynamics. These developments have already begun and should help further an understanding of disorders of social interaction such as autism.
As Abney et al. (2014) have remarked, in cognitive science “multiple theories should interact when describing the same phenomenon.” In social cognition, the case of autism provides a test bed for an integrative approach. Developmental psychopathology has uncovered a wide range of behavioral peculiarities of persons with autism (Burack et al., 2002); cognitive neuroscience has identified many biomarkers at both structural and functional levels; and systems biology has begun to relate genetic variants associated with cellular and metabolic pathways to individual behavior (Randolph-Gips, 2011). The next logical step is to bridge the gap between multiple levels (and disciplines). Two-body or second-person approaches have already drawn some connections between neural and social dynamics in neurotypical populations, and provide potentially powerful tools for the investigation of autism. Hyperscanning techniques, for instance, can be used to uncover relationships between phenotypes at the behavioral level and endophenotypes at neural levels. Inter-individual computational models combined with hyperscanning data could help elucidate causal relationships between structure and dynamics. Differences in brain anatomy may impact the ability of persons with autism to couple with others early in life thus decreasing their propensity to develop social skills (Dumas et al., 2012b). Computational neurogenetic approaches can help model the relationship between the genetics of autism and brain dynamics (Benuskova and Kasabov, 2008). Such integration of neurogenetics and systems biology may soon aid in tackling the heterogeneity observed in autism across genotype, neural endophenotype, and socio-behavioral phenotype levels.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Statements
Acknowledgments
Guillaume Dumas and J. A. Scott Kelso are grateful for the support of NIMH Grant MH 080838.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AbneyD. H.DaleR.YoshimiJ.KelloC. T.TylénK.FusaroliR. (2014). Joint perceptual decision-making: a case study in explanatory pluralism. Front. Psychol. 5:330. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00330
2
AdolphsR. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 165–178. 10.1038/nrn1056
3
AllenM.WilliamsG. (2011). Consciousness, plasticity, and connectomics: the role of intersubjectivity in human cognition. Front. Psychol. 2:20. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00020
4
AuvrayM.LenayC.StewartJ. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas Psychol. 27, 32–47. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.12.002
5
BabiloniF.AstolfiL. (2012). Social neuroscience and hyperscanning techniques: past, present and future. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 44, 76–93. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.07.006
6
BahramiB.OlsenK.LathamP. E.RoepstorffA.ReesG.FrithC. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science329, 1081–1085. 10.1126/science.1185718
7
BangD.FusaroliR.TylénK.OlsenK.LathamP.LauJ.BahramiB.et al. (2014). Does interaction matter? Testing whether a confidence heuristic can replace interaction in collective decision-making. Conscious. Cogn. 27, 13–23. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.002
8
BenuskovaL.KasabovN. (2008). Modeling brain dynamics using computational neurogenetic approach. Cogn. Neurodyn. 2, 319–334. 10.1007/s11571-008-9061-1
9
BresslerS. L.TognoliE. (2006). Operational principles of neurocognitive networks. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 60, 139–148. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.12.008
10
BurackJ. A.IarocciG.BowlerD.MottronL. (2002). Benefits and pitfalls in the merging of disciplines: the example of developmental psychopathology and the study of persons with autism. Dev. Psychopathol. 14, 225–237. 10.1017/S095457940200202X
11
CastielloU.BecchioC.ZoiaS.NeliniC.SartoriL.BlasonL.et al. (2010). Wired to be social: the ontogeny of human interaction. PLoS ONE5:e13199. 10.1371/journal.pone.0013199
12
CatmurC. (2013). Sensorimotor learning and the ontogeny of the mirror neuron system. Neurosci. Lett. 540, 21–27. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.001
13
De JaegherH. (2009). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Conscious. Cogn. 18, 535–542. 10.1016/j.concog.2008.10.007
14
De JaegherH.Di PaoloE. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 6, 485–507. 10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9
15
De Vico FallaniF.NicosiaV.SinatraR.AstolfiL.CincottiF.MattiaD.et al. (2010). Defecting or not defecting: how to “read” human behavior during cooperative games by EEG measurements. PLoS ONE5:e14187. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014187
16
Di PaoloE.De JaegherH. (2012). The interactive brain hypothesis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6:163. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00163
17
DumasG. (2011). Towards a two-body neuroscience. Commun. Integr. Biol. 4, 349. 10.4161/cib.4.3.15110
18
DumasG.ChavezM.NadelJ.MartinerieJ. (2012b). Anatomical connectivity influences both intra-and inter-brain synchronizations. PLoS ONE7:e36414. 10.1371/journal.pone.0036414
19
DumasG.MartinerieJ.SoussignanR.NadelJ. (2012a). Does the brain know who is at the origin of what in an imitative interaction?Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6:128. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00128
20
DumasG.NadelJ.SoussignanR.MartinerieJ.GarneroL. (2010). Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS ONE5:e12166. 10.1371/journal.pone.0012166
21
FerrariP. F.TramacereA.SimpsonE. A.IrikiA. (2013). Mirror neurons through the lens of epigenetics. Trends Cohn. Sci. 17, 450–457. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.07.003
22
FerrariP. F.VisalberghiE.PauknerA.FogassiL.RuggieroA.SuomiS. J. (2006). Neonatal imitation in rhesus macaques. PLoS Biol. 4:e302. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040302
23
FogelA. (1993). Two principles of communication: co-regulation and framing, in New Perspectives in Early Communicative Development, eds NadelJ.CamaioniL. (London: Routledge), 9–22.
24
FogelA.GarveyA. (2007). Alive communication. Infant Behav. Dev. 30, 251–257. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.02.007
25
FristonK. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 127–138. 10.1038/nrn2787
26
FristonK.MattoutJ.KilnerJ. (2011). Action understanding and active inference. Biol. Cybern. 104, 137–160. 10.1007/s00422-011-0424-z
27
FroeseT.Di PaoloE. A. (2010). Modelling social interaction as perceptual crossing: an investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connect. Sci. 22, 43–68. 10.1080/09540090903197928
28
FroeseT.GershensonC.RosenbluethD. A. (2013). The dynamically extended mind, in 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) (Cancún: IEEE), 1419–1426. 10.1109/CEC.2013.6557730
29
FroeseT.IizukaH.IkegamiT. (2014). Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in pairs of humans: a minimalist virtual reality experiment. Sci. Rep. 4:3672. 10.1038/srep03672. Available online at: http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140114/srep03672/full/srep03672.html
30
FusaroliR.Rączaszek-LeonardiJ.TylénK. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas Psychol. 32, 147–157. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.005
31
GalleseV.KeysersC.RizzolattiG. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 396–403. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.002
32
GallottiM.FrithC. D. (2013). Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 160–165. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.002
33
GuionnetS.NadelJ.BertasiE.SperdutiM.DelaveauP.FossatiP. (2012). Reciprocal imitation: toward a neural basis of social interaction. Cereb. Cortex22, 971–978. 10.1093/cercor/bhr177
34
HariR.KujalaM. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: from concepts to brain imaging. Physiol. Rev. 89, 453–479. 10.1152/physrev.00041.2007
35
HassonU.GhazanfarA. A.GalantucciB.GarrodS.KeysersC. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: a mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 114–121. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
36
HassonU.NirY.LevyI.FuhrmannG.MalachR. (2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science303, 1634–1640. 10.1126/science.1089506
37
HoelE. P.AlbantakisL.TononiG. (2013). Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 19790–19795. 10.1073/pnas.1314922110
38
KelsoJ. A. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39
KelsoJ. A. S. (2002). The complementary nature of coordination dynamics: self-organization and the origins of agency. J. Nonlin. Phenomena Complex Syst. 5, 364–371.
40
KelsoJ. A.de GuzmanG. C.ReveleyC.TognoliE. (2009). Virtual partner interaction (VPI): exploring novel behaviors via coordination dynamics. PLoS ONE4:e5749. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005749
41
KelsoJ. A. S.DumasG.TognoliE. (2013). Outline of a general theory of behavior and brain coordination. Neural Netw. 37, 120–131. 10.1016/j.neunet.2012.09.003
42
KeysersC.GazzolaV. (2007). Integrating simulation and theory of mind: from self to social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 194–196. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.002
43
KeysersC.PerrettD. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 501–507. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.005
44
KonvalinkaI.BauerM.StahlhutC.HansenL. K.RoepstorffA.FrithC. D. (2014). Frontal alpha oscillations distinguish leaders from followers: multivariate decoding of mutually interacting brains. Neuroimage94, 79–88. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.003
45
KonvalinkaI.RoepstorffA. (2012). The two-brain approach: how can mutually interacting brains teach us something about social interaction?Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6:215. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00215
46
KugiumutzakisG. (1993). Intersubjective vocal imitation in early mother-infant interaction, in New Perspectives in Early Communicative Development, eds NadelJ.CamaioniL. (London: Routledge), 23–47.
47
LepageJ. F.ThéoretH. (2007). The mirror neuron system: grasping others' actions from birth?Dev. Sci. 10, 513–523. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00631.x
48
Le Van QuyenM. (2011). The brainweb of cross-scale interactions. New Ideas Psychol. 29, 57–63. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.11.001
49
MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Dev. 54, 702–709. 10.2307/1130058
50
MontagueP. R.BernsG. S.CohenJ. D.McClureS. M.PagnoniG.DhamalaM.et al. (2002). Hyperscanning: simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. Neuroimage16, 1159–1164. 10.1006/nimg.2002.1150
51
MüllerV.SängerJ.LindenbergerU. (2013). Intra- and inter-brain synchronization during musical improvisation on the guitar. PLoS ONE8:e73852. 10.1371/journal.pone.0073852
52
NadelJ.CarchonI.KervellaC.MarcelliD.Réserbat-PlanteyD. (1999). Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Dev. Sci. 2, 164–173. 10.1111/1467-7687.00065
53
NadelJ.CroueS.KervellaC.MattlingerM.-J.CanetP.HudelotC.et al. (2000). Do autistic children have ontological expectancies concerning human behavior?Autism4, 133–145. 10.1177/1362361300004002003
54
NadelJ.DumasG. (2014). The interacting body: intra- and inter-individual processes during imitation. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 13, 163–175. 10.1891/1945-8959.13.2.163
55
Nadel-BrulfertJ.BaudonnièreP. M. (1982). The social function of reciprocal imitation in 2-year-old peers. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 5, 95–109. 10.1177/016502548200500105
56
NagyE.CompagneH.OrvosH.PalA.MolnarP.JanszkyI.et al. (2005). Index finger movement imitation by human neonates: motivation, learning, and left-hand preference. Pediatr. Res. 58, 749–753. 10.1203/01.PDR.0000180570.28111.D9
57
PauknerA.SuomiS. J.VisalberghiE.FerrariP. F. (2009). Capuchin monkeys display affiliation toward humans who imitate them. Science325, 880–883. 10.1126/science.1176269
58
PfeifferU. J.TimmermansB.BenteG.VogeleyK.SchilbachL. (2011). A non-verbal turing test: differentiating mind from machine in gaze-based social interaction. PLoS ONE6:e27591. 10.1371/journal.pone.0027591
59
PiontelliA. (2010). Development of normal fetal movements. Milan: Springer Verlag Italia. 10.1007/978-88-470-1402-2
60
PlenzD.NieburE. (eds.). (2014). Criticality in Neural Systems. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. 10.1002/9783527651009
61
Randolph-GipsM. (2011). Autism: a systems biology disease, in 2011 First IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, Imaging and Systems Biology (HISB) (San Jose, CA: IEEE), 359–366. 10.1109/HISB.2011.13
62
SängerJ.MüllerV.LindenbergerU. (2012). Intra- and inter- brain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6:312. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312
63
SängerJ.MüllerV.LindenbergerU. (2013). Directionality in hyperbrain networks discriminates between leaders and followers in guitar duets. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:234. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00234
64
SchilbachL. (2014). On the relationship of online and offline social cognition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:278. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00278
65
SchilbachL.TimmermansB.ReddyV.CostallA.BenteG.SchlichtT.et al. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 393–414. 10.1017/S0140525X12000660
66
Sheets-JohnstoneM. (2011). The Primacy of Movement, Vol. 82. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/aicr.82
67
SoussignanR.CourtialA.CanetP.Danon-ApterG.NadelJ. (2011). Human newborns match tongue protrusion of disembodied human and robotic mouths. Dev. Sci. 14, 385–394. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00984.x
68
SperdutiM.GuionnetS.FossatiP.NadelJ. (2014). Mirror neuron system and mentalizing system connect during online social interaction. Cogn. Process. 1–10. 10.1007/s10339-014-0600-x
69
TognoliE.LagardeJ.DeGuzmanG. C.KelsoJ. S. (2007). The phi complex as a neuromarker of human social coordination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 8190–8195. 10.1073/pnas.0611453104
70
TononiG. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol. Bull. 215, 216–242. 10.2307/25470707
71
UddinL. Q.IacoboniM.LangeC.KeenanJ. P. (2007). The self and social cognition: the role of cortical midline structures and mirror neurons. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 153–157. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.01.001
72
WilsonK. G. (1979). Problems in physics with many scales of length. Sci. Am. 241, 140–157. 10.1038/scientificamerican0879-158
73
WilsonM.WilsonT. P. (2005). An oscillator model of the timing of turn-taking. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 957–968. 10.3758/BF03206432
Summary
Keywords
multiscale, social interaction, developmental psychology, two-body neuroscience, second person perspective, hyperscanning, coordination dynamics, complex systems
Citation
Dumas G, Kelso JAS and Nadel J (2014) Tackling the social cognition paradox through multi-scale approaches. Front. Psychol. 5:882. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00882
Received
14 May 2014
Accepted
24 July 2014
Published
12 August 2014
Volume
5 - 2014
Edited by
Ezequiel Alejandro Di Paolo, Ikerbasque - Basque Foundation for Science, Spain
Reviewed by
Viktor Müller, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany; Ezequiel Alejandro Di Paolo, Ikerbasque - Basque Foundation for Science, Spain
Copyright
© 2014 Dumas, Kelso and Nadel.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: dumas@ccs.fau.edu
This article was submitted to Cognitive Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.