Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966304›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025

Machine learning classification of active viewing of pain and non-pain images using EEG does not exceed chance in external validation samples.

Tyler Mari, S Hasan Ali, Lucrezia Pacinotti, Sarah Powsey, Nicholas Fallon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Tyler MariDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK. tyler.mari@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9062-5175
S Hasan AliDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Lucrezia PacinottiDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Sarah PowseyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Nicholas FallonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 219574/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that machine learning (ML) could not effectively decode passive observation of neutral versus pain photographs by using electroencephalogram (EEG) data. Consequently, the present study explored whether active viewing, i.e., requiring participant engagement in a task, of neutral and pain stimuli improves ML performance. Random forest (RF) models were trained on cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) during a two-alternative forced choice paradigm, whereby participants determined the presence or absence of pain in photographs of facial expressions and action scenes. Sixty-two participants were recruited for the model development sample. Moreover, a within-subject temporal validation sample was collected, consisting of 27 subjects. In line with our previous research, three RF models were developed to classify images into faces and scenes, neutral and pain scenes, and neutral and pain expressions. The results demonstrated that the RF successfully classified discrete categories of visual stimuli (faces and scenes) with accuracies of 78% and 66% on cross-validation and external validation, respectively. However, despite promising cross-validation results of 61% and 67% for the classification of neutral and pain scenes and neutral and pain faces, respectively, the RF models failed to exceed chance performance on the external validation dataset on both empathy classification attempts. These results align with previous research, highlighting the challenges of classifying complex states, such as pain empathy using ERPs. Moreover, the results suggest that active observation fails to enhance ML performance beyond previous passive studies. Future research should prioritise improving model performance to obtain levels exceeding chance, which would demonstrate increased utility.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFacial RecognitionMachine LearningPainPain PerceptionAdultFacial ExpressionFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultElectroencephalographyEmpathyEvent-related potentialFacesRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID39966304
PMCPMC12130162

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.