Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085370›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A portable affective computing system for identifying mate preference.

Guangjie Yuan, Tao Wang, Wei Ju, Sai Fu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Guangjie YuanSchool of Psychology, Qufu Normal University, Shandong, China. gjyuan@qfnu.edu.cn.
Tao WangSchool of Psychology, Qufu Normal University, Shandong, China.
Wei JuSchool of Psychology, Qufu Normal University, Shandong, China.
Sai FuFaculty of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China. saifu1992@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 32300944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recognizing an individual's preference state for potential romantic partners based on electroencephalogram (EEG) signals holds significant practical value in enhancing matchmaking success rates and preventing romance fraud. Despite some progress has been made in this field, challenges such as high-dimensional feature space and channel redundancy limited the technology's practical application. The aim of this study is to explore the most discriminative EEG features and channels, in order to enhance the recognition performance of the system, while maximizing the portable and practical value of EEG-based systems for recognizing romantic attraction. To achieve this goal, we first conducted an interesting simulated dating experiment to collect the necessary data. Next, EEG features were extracted from various dimensions, including band power and asymmetry index features. Then, we introduced a novel method for EEG feature and channel selection that combines the sequential forward selection (SFS) algorithm with the frequency-based feature subset integration (FFSI) algorithm. Finally, we used the random forest classifier (RFC) to determine a person's preference state for potential romantic partners. Experimental results indicate that the optimal feature subset, selected using the SFS-FFSI method, attained an average classification accuracy of 88.42%. Notably, these features were predominantly sourced from asymmetry index features of electrodes situated in the frontal, parietal, and occipital lobes.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographySexual PartnersAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCognitive neuroscienceFeature selectionInterpersonal attractionMachine learningMate preferenceRomantic attraction

Identifiers

PMID39085370
PMCPMC11292018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.