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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Individual differences in the empathic experience of pain: An EEG and machine learning approach.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
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
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
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.