Multimodal Neurophenotyping Avatars: Lenses for Naturalistic and Relational Neuroscience (with Replicable Inference)

The depth with which you explore your question shapes what you will perceive next.

In evidence-based science, a “good question” is not just curiosity: it defines the slice of reality that will be observed (time window, context, body, culture) and the kind of data that will be meaningful. That is why our project uses Neuroscience Perception Avatars as a practical method to guide questions, experimental design decisions, and interpretation. When a researcher intentionally adopts an avatar, they tend to ask different questions—and to interpret the same dataset through distinct lenses. That is not a mistake. It is method.

Human behavior is multidimensional, and every study measures partials—not the whole. Even with robust biosignals (EEG, fNIRS, SpO₂, HRV, GSR, pupil, movement, speech, video), what we record always happens within a time window and within a territory. The avatar works as a “framing guide”: it helps decide what to ask, what to control, what to measure, and how to interpret without confusing correlation with history, body with culture, or mechanism with narrative.

Connectomes in action: Rock–Paper–Scissors and Zones 1–2–3

We organize functional modes of the connectome into three operational states, as a useful metaphor for “fast vs. slow thinking” and for planning measurements. Scissors represents greater prefrontal recruitment (planning, executive control, cataloging), excellent for method and precision—at the risk of rigidity. Rock represents greater sensorimotor recruitment and rapid responses (habit, defense/attack/flight), efficient—at the risk of autopilot. Paper represents Fruition + Metacognition (Zone 2): broader attention, a more stable body, and belonging reorganizing choices, sustaining high performance with psychological safety. These modes tend to stabilize into Zones: Zone 1 (daily life in task-mode, a functional mix of Scissors + Rock), Zone 2 (Paper, a return to body and belonging), Zone 3 (capture by rigid scripts/ideologies, with interoception and proprioception silenced and little openness for authentic critical reorganization). Importantly, we treat this as an operational metaphor, not as a “brain diagnosis.” It is meant to guide the question, the design, and the reading of data.

Why we use Avatars

Our avatars exist to make explicit something every researcher already does implicitly: choosing a lens to carve reality. The same protocol can “work” and still answer the wrong question because the framing was poorly defined. By declaring the avatar, the researcher takes responsibility for the framing: which level of analysis is primary (body, culture, territory, group), which variables are central, which time window matters, and which measures are most informative. In this way, avatars are not merely mascots; they are a replicable thinking device to improve question quality and reduce interpretation bias.

The Avatars (lenses) and what they do

Brainlly (Jellyfish) — Living Neurodynamics of Perception. Represents the coupling among neurons, glia, and blood (neurovascular coupling). Its role is to guide neurophysiological questions: “What pattern accompanies this state?” “How do Zone 1↔2 or Zone 3→2 transitions appear in biosignals?” It privileges measures such as EEG, fNIRS, pupil, reaction time, SpO₂, and tasks with controlled manipulations.

Iam (Continuous lines) — Affect, Motivation, and First-Person Consciousness. Represents the affective axis: short emotions, stable feelings, bonds, motivations, and how these shape decision and episodic memory. It formulates regulatory questions: “What regulates vs. dysregulates this body?” “Which brief emotion sustains a stable feeling?” It privileges HRV, GSR, breathing, facial cues, brief scales, and valence/arousal markers.

Tekoha — Extended Interoception / Eu-Biome (Living Homeostasis). Represents the “body from the inside” in expanded operation: habits, food, water, life rhythm, and metabolized culture composing a regulatory system. While APUS describes the body’s position in relation to what is perceived (extended proprioception), Tekoha describes how the body sustains or sabotages homeostasis over time. It asks: “Does this way of life support or disrupt homeostasis?” “What is biology and what is metabolized culture?” It privileges autonomic measures, behavioral diaries, routine/sleep protocols, and integrated physiological parameters.

Olmeca — Culture, Life History, and the Social Connectome. Represents language, habits, rituals, education, class, trauma, cultural territory, and development. Its role is to prevent the classic error of treating culture as “noise.” It asks: “Why does the same stimulus mean different things across people?” It privileges contextual tasks, brief interviews, narrative analysis, and well-defined sociocultural variables.

Yagé — Mode Switching and Applied Metacognition. Represents the capacity to perceive one’s own perception and to flex constructs (values, beliefs, principles). It acts as a “gearbox,” identifying rigidity (Rock/Scissors) and opening a path toward Paper (Zone 2) when possible. Typical questions: “Which construct is capturing the body?” “How can we induce metacognition without forcing a narrative?” It privileges reappraisal protocols, flexibility tasks, and pre/post measurement designs.

APUS — Body–Territory / Extended Proprioception. Represents the environment entering the body: posture, gravity, space, rhythm, breathing, and territory as an extension of the body. It asks how physical context reorganizes focus, emotion, and decision: “Which environmental factor remodels this body?” It privileges IMU/movement, posture, breathing, HRV, spatial trajectories, and environmental interventions.

DANA (DNA Avatar) — DNA Intelligence and Living Organization in Territory. Represents the original biological intelligence inscribed in DNA and regulated by rhythms, environment, and biosocial belonging. It builds direct bridges with Tekoha (homeostasis), APUS (territory), and Jiwasa (shared biome). It focuses on stability questions: “Which conditions keep Zone 2 plausible over time?” “Which rhythms sustain regulation?” It privileges longitudinal designs and data integration.

Collective Layer

Jiwasa — Biosocial Coupling in a Shared Task (same biome). Jiwasa is the collective level of analysis: coordination, conflict, cohesion, affective contagion, and social timing. It applies whenever the true unit of the phenomenon is the group (not the individual). It asks: “Is there a collective Zone 2?” “Where is real synchrony vs. synchrony under pressure?” It privileges hyperscanning (EEG/fNIRS), HRV/breathing synchrony, turn-taking metrics, prosody, and coordination dynamics.

Method Audit

Math/Hep — Evidence, Statistics, Replicability, and the Hep/Heep principle. Math/Hep carries the statistician’s commitment: hypothesis clarity, variable definition, bias control, appropriate modeling, and replicability. Here, “Hep” and “Heep” also connect our semantics to the Tensional Selves (Eus Tensionais): patterns built from moments of bodily tension, in which neurons that fire together tend to fire together. In other words, the scientific question must respect the dynamics of a body that learns through coupling, and the experiment must be able to distinguish real effects from framing-driven self-deception. Math/Hep acts as an auditor: “What do I manipulate?” “Which outcome measures what I claim it measures?” “Which control prevents circular interpretation?” “Is this correlation or a test of causality?” Its practical rule is to reduce complexity without betraying the phenomenon: one testable hypothesis at a time, with explicit quality criteria and stated limits.

Keeping the Avatars scientifically “alive”

Each avatar maintains a living dossier of publications and exemplary protocols. New relevant papers are attached to the avatar (or to bridges between avatars), and Math/Hep audits methods, variables, controls, limitations, and generalization. In this way, the avatars evolve: they become sharper lenses, generate better questions, cleaner designs, and clearer interpretations—always remembering that the depth of the question determines what the data can reveal.