Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38318079›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Enhancing EEG-based attachment style prediction: unveiling the impact of feature domains.

Ilan Laufer, Dor Mizrahi, Inon Zuckerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Ilan LauferDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Dor MizrahiDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Inon ZuckermanDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Attachment styles are crucial in human relationships and have been explored through neurophysiological responses and EEG data analysis. This study investigates the potential of EEG data in predicting and differentiating secure and insecure attachment styles, contributing to the understanding of the neural basis of interpersonal dynamics. Methods: We engaged 27 participants in our study, employing an XGBoost classifier to analyze EEG data across various feature domains, including time-domain, complexity-based, and frequency-based attributes. Results: The study found significant differences in the precision of attachment style prediction: a high precision rate of 96.18% for predicting insecure attachment, and a lower precision of 55.34% for secure attachment. Balanced accuracy metrics indicated an overall model accuracy of approximately 84.14%, taking into account dataset imbalances. Discussion: These results highlight the challenges in using EEG patterns for attachment style prediction due to the complex nature of attachment insecurities. Individuals with heightened perceived insecurity predominantly aligned with the insecure attachment category, suggesting a link to their increased emotional reactivity and sensitivity to social cues. The study underscores the importance of time-domain features in prediction accuracy, followed by complexity-based features, while noting the lesser impact of frequency-based features. Our findings advance the understanding of the neural correlates of attachment and pave the way for future research, including expanding demographic diversity and integrating multimodal data to refine predictive models.

Indexed as

attachment stylesEEG data analysisfeature domainsmachine learningneurophysiological responses

Identifiers

PMID38318079
PMCPMC10838989

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.