Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715119›Full record

ArticleBMC neuroscience2023

Machine learning and EEG can classify passive viewing of discrete categories of visual stimuli but not the observation of pain.

Tyler Mari, Jessica Henderson, S Hasan Ali, Danielle Hewitt, Christopher Brown, Andrej Stancak, Nicholas Fallon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tyler MariDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK. Tyler.Mari@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9062-5175
Jessica HendersonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
S Hasan AliDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Danielle HewittDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Christopher BrownDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Andrej StancakDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Nicholas FallonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of machine learning (ML) in classifying physical pain from non-pain states using electroencephalographic (EEG) data. However, the application of ML to EEG data to categorise the observation of pain versus non-pain images of human facial expressions or scenes depicting pain being inflicted has not been explored. The present study aimed to address this by training Random Forest (RF) models on cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded while participants passively viewed faces displaying either pain or neutral expressions, as well as action scenes depicting pain or matched non-pain (neutral) scenarios. Ninety-one participants were recruited across three samples, which included a model development group (n = 40) and a cross-subject validation group (n = 51). Additionally, 25 participants from the model development group completed a second experimental session, providing a within-subject temporal validation sample. The analysis of ERPs revealed an enhanced N170 component in response to faces compared to action scenes. Moreover, an increased late positive potential (LPP) was observed during the viewing of pain scenes compared to neutral scenes. Additionally, an enhanced P3 response was found when participants viewed faces displaying pain expressions compared to neutral expressions. Subsequently, three RF models were developed to classify images into faces and scenes, neutral and pain scenes, and neutral and pain expressions. The RF model achieved classification accuracies of 75%, 64%, and 69% for cross-validation, cross-subject, and within-subject classifications, respectively, along with reasonably calibrated predictions for the classification of face versus scene images. However, the RF model was unable to classify pain versus neutral stimuli above chance levels when presented with subsequent tasks involving images from either category. These results expand upon previous findings by externally validating the use of ML in classifying ERPs related to different categories of visual images, namely faces and scenes. The results also indicate the limitations of ML in distinguishing pain and non-pain connotations using ERP responses to the passive viewing of visually similar images.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyMachine LearningHumansPainRandom ForestElectroencephalographyEmpathyEvent-related potentialExternal validationN170

Identifiers

PMID37715119
PMCPMC10504739
OpenAlexW4386769241

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.