Interactive Feedback in persuader-persuadee interaction Enhances Persuasion: An fNIRS hyperscanning study

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0805

Abstract

Abstract:

Persuasion is a fundamental social skill in humans, essential for information propagation and the social influence. Existing research has primarily focused on the aspects of persuasive content, neglecting the interactive dynamics inherent to persuasion. The present study complemented by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to examines the effects of interactive feedback on interpersonal persuasion and its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms, employing a dyadic persuasion paradigm with high ecological validity. Behavioral results indicate that, relative to the no-interactive-feedback condition, interactive feedback condition enhanced both persuasion outcomes and perceived persuasiveness. In terms of neural activity, results revealed that interactive feedback enhanced brain-to-brain synchrony between the persuader and persuadee in the right frontal cortex and left temporoparietal regions, with this synchrony positively predicting persuasion outcomes. Granger causality further elucidated the directional characteristics of brain-to-brain synchrony, offering insights into the interaction patterns between the persuader and persuadee during the persuasive process. Regarding the employ of persuasion strategies, persuaders in the interactive feedback condition employed refutational strategies more frequently than supportive strategies. Moreover, brain-to-brain synchrony during the refutational strategy was significantly higher than during the supportive strategy. Furthermore, brain-to-brain synchrony gradually increased following, rather than preceding, the employment of the refutational strategy. This finding underscores the importance of refutational strategies in enhancing persuasion, brain-to-brain synchrony between the persuader’s left superior temporal gyrus and the persuadee’s right frontal gyrus effectively tracking and identifying the use of this strategy. In summary, the present study offers a novel perspective on how interactive feedback enhances interpersonal persuasion, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complicate and authentic processes of persuasion through interpersonal neuroscience.

Key words: Persuasion, interactive feedback, persuasion strategy, fNIRS hyperscanning, brain-to-brain synchronization (BBS)

LI Yangzhuo, ZHANG Ruqian, SONG Sensen, LI Xianchun, LUO Junlong. (2025). Interactive Feedback in persuader-persuadee interaction Enhances Persuasion: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 805-819.

Figures/Tables 7

References 59

[1]	Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition:How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[2]	Ayrolles, A., Brun, F., Chen, P., Djalovski, A., Beauxis, Y., Delorme, R., … Dumas, G. (2021). HyPyP: A Hyperscanning python pipeline for inter-brain connectivity analysis. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 72-83. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa141 pmid: 33031496
[3]	Baek, E. C., & Falk, E. B. (2018). Persuasion and influence: What makes a successful persuader? Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 53-57. doi: S2352-250X(17)30287-7 pmid: 29803961
[4]	Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 286-299.
[5]	Barnett, L., & Seth, A. K. (2014). The MVGC multivariate granger causality toolbox: A new approach to granger causal inference. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 223, 50-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.018 pmid: 24200508
[6]	Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586-607.
[7]	Binder, A., Naderer, B., & Matthes, J. (2021). Shaping healthy eating habits in children with persuasive strategies: Toward a typology. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 676127.
[8]	Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The neuroscience of persuasion: A review with an emphasis on issues and opportunities. Social Neuroscience, 13(2), 129-172. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1273851 pmid: 28005461
[9]	Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 pmid: 16367530
[10]	Cascio, C. N., Scholz, C., & Falk, E. B. (2015). Social influence and the brain: Persuasion, susceptibility to influence and retransmission. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 51-57.
[11]	Cope, M., & Delpy, D. T. (1988). System for long-term measurement of cerebral blood and tissue oxygenation on newborn infants by near infrared transillumination. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 26(3), 289-294.
[12]	Cooper, J., Blackman, S., & Keller, K. (2015). The Science of attitudes. New York, NY: Routledge.
[13]	Couzin, I. D. (2018). Synchronization: The key to effective communication in animal collectives. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(10), 844-846. doi: S1364-6613(18)30179-7 pmid: 30266143
[14]	Dai, B., Chen, C., Long, Y., Zheng, L., Zhao, H., Bai, X.,... Lu, C. (2018). Neural mechanisms for selectively tuning in to the target speaker in a naturalistic noisy situation. Nature Communications, 9(1), 2405.
[15]	Di Plinio, S., Aquino, A., Haddock, G., Alparone, F. R., & Ebisch, S. J. (2023). Brain and behavioral contributions to individual choices in response to affective-cognitive persuasion. Cerebral Cortex, 33(5), 2361-2374.
[16]	Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M, Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & van der Lugt, A. (2009). A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 653-668.
[17]	Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J.,... Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375-1380. doi: S0960-9822(17)30411-6 pmid: 28457867
[18]	Dmochowski, J. P., Bezdek, M. A., Abelson, B. P., Johnson, J. S., Schumacher, E. H., & Parra, L. C. (2014). Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. Nature Communications, 5(1), 4567.
[19]	Duan, L., Zhao, Z., Lin, Y., Wu, X., Luo, Y., & Xu, P. (2018). Wavelet-based method for removing global physiological noise in functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 9(8), 3805-3820. doi: 10.1364/BOE.9.003805 pmid: 30338157
[20]	Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644 pmid: 19899859
[21]	Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.
[22]	Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1032-1049.
[23]	Falk, E. B., Berkman, E. T., Whalen, D., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011). Neural activity during health messaging predicts reductions in smoking above and beyond self-report. Health Psychology, 30(2), 177-185. doi: 10.1037/a0022259 pmid: 21261410
[24]	Falk, E. B., Cascio, C. N., & Coronel, J. C. (2015). Neural prediction of communication relevant outcomes. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(1-2), 30-54.
[25]	Falk, E. B., & Scholz, C. (2018). Persuasion, influence, and value: Perspectives from communication and social neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 329-356.
[26]	Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, Jr W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.
[27]	Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., & Jevrejeva, S. (2004). Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Process Geophys, 11(5/6), 561-566.
[28]	Imhof, M. A., Schmälzle, R., Renner, B., & Schupp, H. T. (2020). Strong health messages increase audience brain coupling. NeuroImage, 216, 16527. doi: S1053-8119(20)30014-8 pmid: 31954843
[29]	Jensen, B. (1973). Human reciprocity: An arctic exemplification. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43(3), 447-458. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1973.tb00816.x pmid: 4711088
[30]	Kingsbury, L., Huang, S., Wang, J., Gu, K., Golshani, P., Wu, Y. E., & Hong, W. (2019). Correlated neural activity and encoding of behavior across brains of socially interacting animals. Cell, 178(2), 429-446. doi: S0092-8674(19)30550-1 pmid: 31230711
[31]	Koriat, A., & Adiv, S. (2011). The construction of attitudinal judgments: Evidence from attitude certainty and response latency. Social Cognition, 29(5), 577-611.
[32]	Jiang, J., Chen, C., Dai, B., Shi, G., Ding, G., Liu, L., & Lu, C. (2015). Leader emergence through interpersonal neural synchronization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(14), 4274-4279.
[33]	Li, R., & Sundar, S. S. (2022). Can interactive media attenuate psychological reactance to health messages? A study of the role played by user commenting and audience metrics in persuasion. Health Communication, 37(11), 1355-1367.
[34]	Li, Y., Luo, X., Wang, K., & Li, X. (2023). Persuader-receiver neural coupling underlies persuasive messaging and predicts persuasion outcome. Cerebral Cortex, 33(11), 6818-6833.
[35]	Limbu, Y. B., Jayachandran, C., Babin, B. J., & Peterson, R. T. (2016). Empathy, nonverbal immediacy, and salesperson performance: The mediating role of adaptive selling behavior. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 654-667.
[36]	Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68.
[37]	Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., & Elwell, C. E. (2010). Illuminating the developing brain: The past, present and future of functional near infrared spectroscopy. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(3), 269-284. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.008 pmid: 19632270
[38]	Modic, D., Anderson, R., & Palomäki, J. (2018). We will make you like our research: The development of a susceptibility-to-persuasion scale. PloS One, 13(3), e0194119.
[39]	Molavi, B., & Dumont, G. A. (2012). Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Physiological Measurement, 33(2), 259-270. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/2/259 pmid: 22273765
[40]	O'Keefe, D. J. (Ed). (2016). Persuasion and social influence. The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (pp.1-19). Northwestern University Press.
[41]	Pan, Y., Cheng, X., & Hu, Y. (2023). Three heads are better than one: Cooperative learning brains wire together when a consensus is reached. Cerebral Cortex, 33(4), 1155-1169.
[42]	Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 29(1), 1-26.
[43]	Pinti, P., Merla, A., Aichelburg, C., Lind, F., Power, S., Swingler, E.,... Tachtsidis, I. (2017). A novel GLM-based method for the Automatic IDentification of functional Events (AIDE) in fNIRS data recorded in naturalistic environments. Neuroimage, 155, 291-304. doi: S1053-8119(17)30391-9 pmid: 28476662
[44]	Reinero, D. A., Dikker, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 43-57. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa135 pmid: 32991728
[45]	Reiss, A. L., Bryant, D. M., Glover, G. H., Liu, N., & Cui, X. (2015). Inferring deep-brain activity from cortical activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 6(3), 1074-1089. doi: 10.1364/BOE.6.001074 pmid: 25798327
[46]	Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Left temporoparietal junction is necessary for representing someone else's belief. Nature Neuroscience, 7(5), 499-500. doi: 10.1038/nn1223 pmid: 15077111
[47]	Sasai, S., Homae, F., Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2011). Frequency-specific functional connectivity in the brain during resting state revealed by NIRS. NeuroImage, 56(1), 252-257. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.075 pmid: 21211570
[48]	Schmälzle, R., Häcker, F. E., Honey, C. J., & Hasson, U. (2015). Engaged listeners: Shared neural processing of powerful political speeches. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(8), 1137-1143. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu168 pmid: 25653012
[49]	Scholz, C., Baek, E. C., O’Donnell, M. B., Kim, H. S., Cappella, J. N., & Falk, E. B. (2017). A neural model of valuation and information virality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(11), 2881-2886.
[50]	Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Mendelsohn, A. (2019). Real-life neuroscience: An ecological approach to brain and behavior research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 841-859. doi: 10.1177/1745691619856350 pmid: 31408614
[51]	Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Dan, H., Jurcak, V., & Dan, I. (2005). Spatial registration of multichannel multi-subject fNIRS data to MNI space without MRI. NeuroImage, 27(4), 842-851. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.019 pmid: 15979346
[52]	Tsuzuki, D., Jurcak, V., Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Watanabe, E., & Dan, I. (2007). Virtual spatial registration of stand-alone fNIRS data to MNI space. NeuroImage, 34(4), 1506-1518. pmid: 17207638
[53]	Van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peters, S., Braams, B. R., & Crone, E. A. (2016). What motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 135-147.
[54]	Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 872-885.
[55]	Wallace, L. E., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). When Sources honestly provide their biased opinion: Bias as a distinct source perception with independent effects on credibility and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 439-453. doi: 10.1177/0146167219858654 pmid: 31282841
[56]	Xie, H., Karipidis, I. I., Howell, A., Schreier, M., Sheau, K. E., Manchanda, M. K.,... Saggar, M. (2020). Finding the neural correlates of collaboration using a three-person fMRI hyperscanning paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 23066-23072.
[57]	Xu, M., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1151-1166.
[58]	Zhao, H., Cheng, T., Zhai, Y., Long, Y., Wang, Z., & Lu, C. (2021). How mother-child interactions are associated with a child’s compliance. Cerebral Cortex, 31(9), 4398-4410.
[59]	Zhu, Y., & Hu, Y. (2024). Chunking feedback in instructor-learner interaction facilities long-term learning transfer: Behavioral and fNIRS hyperscanning studies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 555-576. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00555

Group model	estimate	β	(corrected-p)
Experimental condition(n = 33)
Phase 1	R² = 0.085	Cluster 1 = ?0.04	0.644
	F = 0.89	Cluster 2 = ?0.08	0.596
	p = 0.943
Phase 2	R² = 0.386	Cluster 1 = 0.49	0.026
	F = 4.56	Cluster 2 = 0.24	0.092
	p = 0.024
Phase 2 - Phase 1	R² = 0.401	Cluster 1 = 0.41	0.033
	F = 4.12	Cluster 2 = 0.21	0.108
	p = 0.032
Control group 1 (n = 28)
Phase 1	R² = 0.08	Cluster 1 = ?0.18	0.241
	F = 0.04	Cluster 2 = 0.03	0.633
	p = 0.943
Phase 2	R² = 0.105	Cluster 1 = ?0.16	0.279
	F = 1.46	Cluster 2 = ?0.07	0.543
	p = 0.694
Phase 2 - Phase 1	R² = 0.104	Cluster 1 = ?0.03	0.714
	F = 0.56	Cluster 2 = 0.10	0.369
	p = 0.889
Control group 2 (n = 30)
Phase 1	R² = 0.188	Cluster 1 = 0.13	0.269
	F = 1.16	Cluster 2 = 0.05	0.643
	p = 0.623
Phase2	R² = 0.06	Cluster 1 = 0.05	0.677
	F = 0.69	Cluster 2 = ?0.05	0.609
	p = 0.842
Phase 2 - Phase1	R² = 0.113	Cluster 1 = ?0.19	0.247
	F = 1.07	Cluster 2 = 0.17	0.288
	p = 0.746

Group model	estimate	β	(corrected-p)
Experimental condition(n = 33)
Phase 1	R² = 0.085	Cluster 1 = ?0.04	0.644
	F = 0.89	Cluster 2 = ?0.08	0.596
	p = 0.943
Phase 2	R² = 0.386	Cluster 1 = 0.49	0.026
	F = 4.56	Cluster 2 = 0.24	0.092
	p = 0.024
Phase 2 - Phase 1	R² = 0.401	Cluster 1 = 0.41	0.033
	F = 4.12	Cluster 2 = 0.21	0.108
	p = 0.032
Control group 1 (n = 28)
Phase 1	R² = 0.08	Cluster 1 = ?0.18	0.241
	F = 0.04	Cluster 2 = 0.03	0.633
	p = 0.943
Phase 2	R² = 0.105	Cluster 1 = ?0.16	0.279
	F = 1.46	Cluster 2 = ?0.07	0.543
	p = 0.694
Phase 2 - Phase 1	R² = 0.104	Cluster 1 = ?0.03	0.714
	F = 0.56	Cluster 2 = 0.10	0.369
	p = 0.889
Control group 2 (n = 30)
Phase 1	R² = 0.188	Cluster 1 = 0.13	0.269
	F = 1.16	Cluster 2 = 0.05	0.643
	p = 0.623
Phase2	R² = 0.06	Cluster 1 = 0.05	0.677
	F = 0.69	Cluster 2 = ?0.05	0.609
	p = 0.842
Phase 2 - Phase1	R² = 0.113	Cluster 1 = ?0.19	0.247
	F = 1.07	Cluster 2 = 0.17	0.288
	p = 0.746

Channel	Anatom Label (AAL)	BrodmanArea (BA)
Frontal
1	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
2	Frontal_Sup_Medial_R	Muperior Frontal Gyrus
3	Frontal_Sup_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
4	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
5	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
6	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
7	Frontal_Sup_Medial_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
8	Frontal_Sup_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
9	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
10	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
11	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
12	Frontal_Sup_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
13	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
14	Frontal_Mid_R	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
15	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
16	Frontal_Sup_Medial_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
17	Frontal_Sup_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
18	Frontal_Mid_L	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
19	Frontal_Mid_Orb_R	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
20	Frontal_Sup_Orb_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
21	Frontal_Mid_Orb_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
22	Frontal_Mid_Orb_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
Left Temporoparietal
23	Precentral_L	Primary Motor Cortex
24	Postcentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
25	Parietal_Sup_L	Somatosensory Association Cortex
26	Parietal_Sup_L	Pre-Motor and Supplementary Motor Cortex
27	Precentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
28	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
29	Parietal_Inf_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
30	Angular_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
31	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
32	Parietal_Inf_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
33	Parietal_Inf_L	Subcentral area
34	Postcentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
35	SupraMarginal_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
36	SupraMarginal_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
37	Angular_L	Subcentral area
38	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
39	SupraMarginal_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
40	SupraMarginal_L	Subcentral area
41	Postcentral_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
42	Temporal_Sup_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
43	Temporal_Mid_L	V3
44	Temporal_Mid_L	Middle Temporal gyrus
45	Temporal_Mid_L	Middle Temporal gyrus
46	Temporal_Mid_L	Fusiform gyrus

Channel	Anatom Label (AAL)	BrodmanArea (BA)
Frontal
1	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
2	Frontal_Sup_Medial_R	Muperior Frontal Gyrus
3	Frontal_Sup_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
4	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
5	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
6	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
7	Frontal_Sup_Medial_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
8	Frontal_Sup_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
9	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
10	Frontal_Mid_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
11	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
12	Frontal_Sup_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
13	Frontal_Mid_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
14	Frontal_Mid_R	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
15	Frontal_Sup_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
16	Frontal_Sup_Medial_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
17	Frontal_Sup_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
18	Frontal_Mid_L	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
19	Frontal_Mid_Orb_R	Inferior Frontal Gyrus
20	Frontal_Sup_Orb_R	Middle Frontal Gyrus
21	Frontal_Mid_Orb_L	Superior Frontal Gyrus
22	Frontal_Mid_Orb_L	Middle Frontal Gyrus
Left Temporoparietal
23	Precentral_L	Primary Motor Cortex
24	Postcentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
25	Parietal_Sup_L	Somatosensory Association Cortex
26	Parietal_Sup_L	Pre-Motor and Supplementary Motor Cortex
27	Precentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
28	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
29	Parietal_Inf_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
30	Angular_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
31	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
32	Parietal_Inf_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
33	Parietal_Inf_L	Subcentral area
34	Postcentral_L	Primary Somatosensory Cortex
35	SupraMarginal_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
36	SupraMarginal_L	Angular gyrus, part of Wernicke's area
37	Angular_L	Subcentral area
38	Postcentral_L	Supramarginal gyrus part of Wernicke's area
39	SupraMarginal_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
40	SupraMarginal_L	Subcentral area
41	Postcentral_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
42	Temporal_Sup_L	Superior Temporal Gyrus
43	Temporal_Mid_L	V3
44	Temporal_Mid_L	Middle Temporal gyrus
45	Temporal_Mid_L	Middle Temporal gyrus
46	Temporal_Mid_L	Fusiform gyrus