Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38388958›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2024

Comparative analysis of ROCKET-driven and classic EEG features in predicting attachment styles.

Dor Mizrahi, Ilan Laufer, Inon Zuckerman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2024. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

3 authors.

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

Predicting attachment styles using AI algorithms remains relatively unexplored in scientific literature. This study addresses this gap by employing EEG data to evaluate the effectiveness of ROCKET-driven features versus classic features, both analyzed using the XGBoost machine learning algorithm, for classifying 'secure' or 'insecure' attachment styles.Participants, fourth-year engineering students aged 20-35, first completed the ECR-R questionnaire. A subset then underwent EEG sessions while performing the Arrow Flanker Task, receiving success or failure feedback for each trial.Our findings reveal the effectiveness of both feature sets. The dataset with ROCKET-derived features demonstrated an 88.41% True Positive Rate (TPR) in classifying 'insecure' attachment styles, compared to the classic features dataset, which achieved a notable TPR as well. Visual representations further support ROCKET-derived features' proficiency in identifying insecure attachment tendencies, while the classic features exhibited limitations in classification accuracy. Although the ROCKET-derived features exhibited higher TPR, the classic features also presented a substantial predictive ability.In conclusion, this study advances the integration of AI in psychological assessments, emphasizing the significance of feature selection for specific datasets and applications. While both feature sets effectively classified EEG-based attachment styles, the ROCKET-derived features demonstrated a superior performance across multiple metrics, making them the preferred choice for this study.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectroencephalographyObject AttachmentAdultHumansYoung AdultAttachment stylesEEG (Electroencephalogram) featuresMachine learning in EEG Data AnalysisNeural Signal AnalysisROCKET algorithm (RandOm Convolutional KErnel transform)

Identifiers

PMID38388958
PMCPMC10882770

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.