A Neuroergonomic Research Program

Measure when the Eu-Avatar hijacks the governance of the body (colonized perception in the Mirror World) and test a short protocol that restores “voice” to the Eu-Biome through interoceptive re-anchoring and reconnection with the base-biome. The choice of EEG + fNIRS is straightforward: EEG provides the fine-grained chronology of the hijack (attentional capture, conflict, error, effort), while fNIRS provides the metabolic cost and hemodynamic dynamics in the prefrontal cortex (control/inhibition/self-reference) during fast, ecologically plausible tasks. This aligns with recent literature treating EEG–fNIRS coupling as complementary (time vs. space/physiology) and already applying it to motor/cognitive tasks and network-topology analyses, including dedicated dual-modality reviews.

Line 1 — “Eu-Avatar capture” (operational, no philosophy)

This can be implemented with a simple paradigm: a visual task with trigger sounds (notification vs. control) and short blocks of neutral “feed,” measuring how much exogenous input enters before endogenous decision. EEG already has established markers (P2/N2 and P3/novelty-P3) for capture and control, and post-2020 evidence shows notification sounds can modulate control/attention processes in experimental paradigms (e.g., Navon + notification sounds), making this a strong laboratory proxy for the Mirror World. In parallel, fNIRS adds the “prefrontal cost”: post-2020 work shows altered/reduced dlPFC activation during Stroop in people with problematic smartphone use—exactly when control should be robust. The behavioral/health bridge (to justify youth relevance) is well supported by systematic reviews with meta-analyses linking social media use/problematic use to mental health and sleep.

Line 2 — “Restore voice to the Eu-Biome” (a minimal 60–120s protocol)

Test a 60–120 second protocol (entry → stay → exit) as a minimal intervention between task blocks: reduce urgency (prolonged exhalation), unlock oral/jaw tension, and reintroduce the first-person question (“what is the biome of my body asking for now?”). The hypothesis is measurable: after the protocol, reactivity to triggers decreases and flexibility improves, with lower prefrontal cost in fNIRS and shifts in state markers in EEG. This connects with recent findings on mindfulness/attention and spontaneous brain dynamics (microstates), including studies linking mindfulness traits to microstate parameters and reviews on EEG in meditation. On the fNIRS side, post-2020 pilot evidence shows dlPFC modulation after app-based mindfulness training during attentional-control tasks—useful methodological precedent for a short, applicable, repeatable “Eu-Biome protocol.”

Line 3 — “Inner saboteur = habit under pressure” (automation as colonization)

Here, colonization is framed as automation: under haste, the body trades flexibility for an automatic sequence. This matches post-2020 paradigms formalizing interference between habit (sequence) and goal-directed action, with explicit manipulation of time pressure and conflict between learned sequences and goal-directed choice. EEG can quantify error/monitoring (ERN and frontal theta), and fNIRS can quantify the dlPFC “toll” when participants shift back from automatic to deliberative control.

Line 4 — “Base-biome as anchor” (identity → physiology)

(Costa+Mar, Andes, Cloud Forest/Upper Rainforest, Amazonia) Turn identity into physiology: brief sensory primes (images/sounds of the biome) before a control task (Stroop/Go-NoGo/Flanker) and after the feed. Recent literature suggests nature exposure (even via video) can increase restorative markers such as EEG alpha, and that walking in nature can strengthen neural indices of executive control (e.g., ERN changes) compared to urban environments. This supports a culturally grounded test in Peru: whether “my base-biome” promotes attentional restoration and a return of Eu-Biome governance (measured as reduced capture and reduced prefrontal cost).

Optional Line 5 — Interoception with a direct EEG physiological marker (HEP)

If the center wants a fifth, strongly “Eu-Biome” line: include interoception with HEP (heartbeat-evoked potential), which has been characterized as a window into brain–heart integration. Recent studies show subjective changes in interoception accompanied by HEP changes. This allows you to state—using data—when “the biome regained voice,” without relying only on self-report.

Practical implementation (simple and realistic)

All axes fit a simple design: pre → Mirror World → protocol → post, with short sessions and basic analyses (RT/errors; ERP P2/N2/P3, ERN, alpha/theta power; HbO/HbR in dlPFC/mPFC) plus a repeated anchor question: “Who is governing right now: Eu-Avatar or Eu-Biome?” Post-2020 reviews support exactly this path: EEG–fNIRS as a mature portable multimodal method; notifications as measurable capture/control triggers; problematic smartphone use linked to prefrontal Stroop changes in fNIRS; nature as restorative with EEG and executive-control signatures; and HEP as a marker of “bodily voice.”

References (post-2020) with one-line “what it supports”

• Liu, Z., Shore, J., Wang, M., Yuan, F., Buss, A., & Zhao, X. (2021). A systematic review on hybrid EEG/fNIRS in brain–computer interface. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 68, 102595.
  Supports: practical “how-to” (design, feature extraction, limits) for hybrid EEG+fNIRS protocols in attention/control tasks.

• Chen, J., Yang, J., et al. (2024). Functional near-infrared spectroscopy and electroencephalography dual-modality system: a review. Brain Sciences, 14(6), 631.
  Supports: the complementary logic of “two signal realities” (electrical + hemodynamic) for objective first-person metrics.

• Upshaw, J. D., Stevens, C. E. Jr., Ganis, G., & Zabelina, D. L. (2022). The hidden cost of a smartphone: The effect of smartphone notifications on cognitive control and event-related potentials. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0277220.
  Supports: notification “pings” shift attentional control (ERPs) even without content—aligned with Eu-Avatar growth when Eu-Biome loses voice.

• Upshaw, J. D., Stevens, C. E. Jr., Ganis, G., & Zabelina, D. L. (2024). Electrophysiological effects of smartphone notifications on cognitive control and feedback processing… Biological Psychology, 191, 108916.
  Supports: distraction effects on conflict/feedback markers (N2/FRN) and that brief mindfulness induction can buffer effects (a protocol precedent).

• Xiang, M.-Q., Lin, L.-L., Song, Y.-T., Hu, M., & Hou, X.-H. (2022). Reduced left dorsolateral prefrontal activation in problematic smartphone users during the Stroop task: An fNIRS study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 1097375.
  Supports: problematic use linked to weaker inhibition and reduced dlPFC recruitment—direct bridge to Stroop/Go-NoGo with fNIRS.

• Ahmed, O., Walsh, E. I., Dawel, A., Alateeq, K., Espinoza Oyarce, D. A., & Cherbuin, N. (2024). Social media use, mental health and sleep: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 367, 701–712.
  Supports: distinguishes “use” vs “problematic use” and shows more consistent effects for problematic use (including sleep), grounding Mirror World relevance.

• Coll, M. P., Hobson, H., Bird, G., & Murphy, J. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between the heartbeat-evoked potential and interoception. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 122, 190–200.
  Supports: strong basis for using HEP (EEG time-locked to ECG) as an objective marker of bodily “voice” in interoception protocols.

• Imperatori, C., et al. (2023). Exposure to nature is associated with decreased functional connectivity within the distress network: A resting state EEG study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1130033.
  Supports: nature exposure modulates brain state/connectivity, supporting base-biome as a regulator of “psychic energy” and restoration.

• Klein, N. (2023). Doppelgänger: A Trip into the Mirror World.
  Supports: the conceptual frame (mirror-world duplications) linking Eu-Avatar, the physical internet, and the politics of colonized perception.