Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31641346›Full record

ReviewComputational intelligence and neuroscience2019

Consumer Behaviour through the Eyes of Neurophysiological Measures: State-of-the-Art and Future Trends.

Patrizia Cherubino, Ana C Martinez-Levy, Myriam Caratù, Giulia Cartocci, Gianluca Di Flumeri, Enrica Modica, Dario Rossi, Marco Mancini, Arianna Trettel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. I DARE: IULM Dataset of Affective Responses.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Analysis of Emotion and Recall in COVID-19 Advertisements: A Neuroscientific Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Patrizia CherubinoDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 291, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7669-5855
Ana C Martinez-LevyBrainSigns Srl, Via Sesto Celere 7/c, 00152 Rome, Italy.
Myriam CaratùBrainSigns Srl, Via Sesto Celere 7/c, 00152 Rome, Italy.
Giulia CartocciDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 291, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1347-1306
Gianluca Di FlumeriDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 291, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-051X
Enrica ModicaDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic & Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9793-6563
Dario RossiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic & Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-8628
Marco ManciniBrainSigns Srl, Via Sesto Celere 7/c, 00152 Rome, Italy.
Arianna TrettelBrainSigns Srl, Via Sesto Celere 7/c, 00152 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The new technological advances achieved during the last decade allowed the scientific community to investigate and employ neurophysiological measures not only for research purposes but also for the study of human behaviour in real and daily life situations. The aim of this review is to understand how and whether neuroscientific technologies can be effectively employed to better understand the human behaviour in real decision-making contexts. To do so, firstly, we will describe the historical development of neuromarketing and its main applications in assessing the sensory perceptions of some marketing and advertising stimuli. Then, we will describe the main neuroscientific tools available for such kind of investigations (e.g., measuring the cerebral electrical or hemodynamic activity, the eye movements, and the psychometric responses). Also, this review will present different brain measurement techniques, along with their pros and cons, and the main cerebral indexes linked to the specific mental states of interest (used in most of the neuromarketing research). Such indexes have been supported by adequate validations from the scientific community and are largely employed in neuromarketing research. This review will also discuss a series of papers that present different neuromarketing applications, such us in-store choices and retail, services, pricing, brand perception, web usability, neuropolitics, evaluation of the food and wine taste, and aesthetic perception of artworks. Furthermore, this work will face the ethical issues arisen on the use of these tools for the evaluation of the human behaviour during decision-making tasks. In conclusion, the main challenges that neuromarketing is going to face, as well as future directions and possible scenarios that could be derived by the use of neuroscience in the marketing field, will be identified and discussed.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorEyeNeurophysiologyAdvertisingBrainHumansNeurosciences

Identifiers

PMID31641346
PMCPMC6766676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.