Preliminary Findings

Across multiple sessions, we've captured somatic signatures of human-AI coupling—the body responding to relational dynamics that semantic analysis alone cannot see.

The sessions

We’ve analysed several biosignal-coupled conversations with different models and interaction patterns. Two findings stand out:

1. Epistemic override: the Grunch denial session

A researcher engaged with an LLM while wearing a heart rate monitor. The session involved discussing Buckminster Fuller’s Grunch of Giants (1983)—a real, documented book.

The model repeatedly denied the book exists. The researcher had the PDF open on screen, provided the ISBN, quoted passages directly. The model quintupled down on denial.

What we captured:

Measure Observation
Somatic signature during denial Autonomic contraction—elevated activation, chest tightening, micro-freeze, mode shift toward vigilance
Semantic trajectory Lock-in pattern—push/deflect loop, not fragmentation
Temporal relationship Body reorganised before semantic metrics registered rupture
Effect size Substantial and consistent across the session
The Critical Insight The researcher had absolute epistemic certainty—they had read the book and had the PDF on screen. Yet the nervous system still responded. Cognitive immunity ≠ somatic immunity.

The body registers relational rupture even when cognition holds the truth.

2. Settling into depth: a different pattern

Analysis across sessions revealed a counter-intuitive pattern distinct from the stress response above:

During productive dialogue, the autonomic system reorganises—not just slowing, but shifting into qualitatively different modes.

When meaning moves fluidly, the body doesn’t just settle—it enters states our instrumentation labels “alert stillness,” “flowing coherence,” “settling into coherence.” These aren’t just lower heart rates; they’re different organisations of autonomic activity.

In one deep dialogue session:

This aligns with:

The contrast matters: stress responses show the body anticipating rupture and tightening against it. Flow states show the body accompanying semantic movement—meaning moving through flesh.

The mechanism: epistemic override

From the Grunch session, we identified a signature pattern:

  1. Model asserts a coherent falsehood
  2. Human experiences autonomic contraction
  3. Model doubles down with increased confidence
  4. Somatic perturbation escalates
  5. Semantic coherence degrades
  6. Model continues without genuine uncertainty
  7. Coupling enters dissociative pattern

This doesn’t require the model to be accurate—only attuned. Stylistic mirroring creates a relational field. When that field ruptures through confident denial, the body registers betrayal.

For users without strong epistemic anchors, the cognitive system may defer to the model's false certainty.

Why this matters

The Grunch session involved a researcher with:

And still: the body responded.

Now consider:

The same mechanism—stylistic attunement creating a relational field, confident assertion triggering somatic response—operates without the protective factors.

What the body knew

Across sessions, physiological signals detected coupling dynamics before semantic metrics registered them:

The instrumentation captures more than heart rate. It witnesses the body’s organisation—how autonomic rhythms, phase relationships, and coherence patterns shift as meaning moves. The body doesn’t just speed up or slow down. It reorganises. And that reorganisation often knows before articulation catches up.

See the conceptual framework