ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Understanding the role of emotion in decision making process: using machine learning to analyze physiological responses to visual, auditory, and combined stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping EEG Metrics to Human Affective and Cognitive Models: An Interdisciplinary Scoping Review from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advancing affective stimuli databases: challenges and solutions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emotions significantly shape decision-making, and targeted emotional elicitations represent an important factor in neuromarketing, where they impact advertising effectiveness by capturing potential customers' attention intricately associated with emotional triggers. Analyzing biometric parameters after stimulus exposure may help in understanding emotional states. This study investigates autonomic and central nervous system responses to emotional stimuli, including images, auditory cues, and their combination while recording physiological signals, namely the electrocardiogram, blood volume pulse, galvanic skin response, pupillometry, respiration, and the electroencephalogram. The primary goal of the proposed analysis is to compare emotional stimulation methods and to identify the most effective approach for distinct physiological patterns. A novel feature selection technique is applied to further optimize the separation of four emotional states. Basic machine learning approaches are used in order to discern emotions as elicited by different kinds of stimulation. Electroencephalographic signals, Galvanic skin response and cardio-respiratory coupling-derived features provided the most significant features in distinguishing the four emotional states. Further findings highlight how auditory stimuli play a crucial role in creating distinct physiological patterns that enhance classification within a four-class problem. When combining all three types of stimulation, a validation accuracy of 49% was achieved. The sound-only and the image-only phases resulted in 52% and 44% accuracy respectively, whereas the combined stimulation of images and sounds led to 51% accuracy. Isolated visual stimuli yield less distinct patterns, necessitating more signals for relatively inferior performance compared to other types of stimuli. This surprising significance arises from limited auditory exploration in emotional recognition literature, particularly contrasted with the pleathora of studies performed using visual stimulation. In marketing, auditory components might hold a more relevant potential to significantly influence consumer choices.
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.