ArticleScientific reports2025
Study on incentive mechanism of reward and punishment on work efficiency of PCB welder based on recurrence quantification analysis and electroencephalogram signals.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Multimodal EEG and Eye-Tracking Assessment of Perceived Mental Workload and Situation Awareness in a Visual Display Terminal Simulation Task.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional methods often struggle to objectively quantify the impact of salary incentives on employees' productivity, leaving enterprise incentive strategies without a solid scientific foundation. To address this issue, this study innovatively combines recurrence quantification analysis (RQA) with electroencephalogram (EEG) signals, proposing a dynamic incentive evaluation model based on the analysis of brain chaos characteristics. By comparing the EEG signals of workers with and without reward and punishment incentives (control group vs. experimental group), key features such as deterministic (DET) and average diagonal line length (DLL) are extracted to reveal how incentives regulate work efficiency. The experiment shows that RQA diagrams of workers' EEG under reward and punishment incentives exhibit significantly enhanced chaotic characteristics, with DET and DLL values decreasing by 13.3% and 10.4%, respectively. The accuracy of the twin support vector machine (TWSVM) reaches 98.71%, which is 0.79% and 14.37% higher than existing EEG-based incentive evaluation methods, such as the phase-locking value combined with convolutional neural network (accuracy: 97.92%) and spectral power features (accuracy: 84.34%). This study not only confirms the feasibility of EEG in incentive evaluation but also addresses the insufficient sensitivity of traditional cognitive load monitoring by integrating RQA features and a dynamic classification framework, providing a quantifiable neuroscientific basis for optimizing enterprise incentive mechanisms.
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.