ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020
Decoding Three Different Preference Levels of Consumers Using Convolutional Neural Network: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-time motion artifact suppression using convolution neural networks with penalty in fNIRS.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- EEG biomarkers analysis in different cognitive impairment after stroke: an exploration study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Consumer Behaviour to Be Considered in Advertising: A Systematic Analysis and Future Agenda.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Deep learning in fNIRS: a review.Neurophotonics · 2022Review
- Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- How Does the Implicit Awareness of Consumers Influence the Effectiveness of Public Service Announcements? A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Like/Dislike Prediction for Sport Shoes With Electroencephalography: An Application of Neuromarketing.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study decodes consumers' preference levels using a convolutional neural network (CNN) in neuromarketing. The classification accuracy in neuromarketing is a critical factor in evaluating the intentions of the consumers. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is utilized as a neuroimaging modality to measure the cerebral hemodynamic responses. In this study, a specific decoding structure, called CNN-based fNIRS-data analysis, was designed to achieve a high classification accuracy. Compared to other methods, the automated characteristics, constant training of the dataset, and learning efficiency of the proposed method are the main advantages. The experimental procedure required eight healthy participants (four female and four male) to view commercial advertisement videos of different durations (15, 30, and 60 s). The cerebral hemodynamic responses of the participants were measured. To compare the preference classification performances, CNN was utilized to extract the most common features, including the mean, peak, variance, kurtosis, and skewness. Considering three video durations, the average classification accuracies of 15, 30, and 60 s videos were 84.3, 87.9, and 86.4%, respectively. Among them, the classification accuracy of 87.9% for 30 s videos was the highest. The average classification accuracies of three preferences in females and males were 86.2 and 86.3%, respectively, showing no difference in each group. By comparing the classification performances in three different combinations (like vs. so-so, like vs. dislike, and so-so vs. dislike) between two groups, male participants were observed to have targeted preferences for commercial advertising, and the classification performance 88.4% between "like" vs. "dislike" out of three categories was the highest. Finally, pairwise classification performance are shown as follows: For female, 86.1% (like vs. so-so), 87.4% (like vs. dislike), 85.2% (so-so vs. dislike), and for male 85.7, 88.4, 85.1%, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.