ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Evaluating haptic experience using EEG and deep learning across multiple modalities: linking stimulus and self-reports.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventionally, evaluations of haptic interfaces have relied on self-reported assessments, which offer limited objectivity and can disrupt the user experience, making it challenging to design interfaces that dynamically adapt to users' cognitive state in real time. To overcome these limitations, cognitive haptic interfaces leverage neurophysiological measures such as EEG and deep learning to directly capture the brain's responses to haptic stimulation. A key challenge is how to label these neural responses: do we ground models in objectively controlled Physical Stimulation (PS) parameters, or in participants' Self-Reported (SR) perceptions? The goal of this work is not to demonstrate that EEG can reproduce subjective reports, but rather to systematically examine how neural responses relate to these two aspects of haptic experience by training deep learning models under both PS and SR labeling schemes. Here, we investigate how PS- versus SR-based labeling impacts model performance across four modalities: (i) delayed force-feedback (DFF), (ii) fingertip vibration feedback (FVF), (iii) upper-body vibration feedback (UVF), and (iv) fingertip thermal feedback (FTF). We evaluate three deep learning benchmarked architectures: ATCNet, EEG Inception, and EEG Conformer on EEG data labeled according to both approaches. Across all modalities, PS-labeled models yield more stable and higher performance than SR-labeled models in a group-level leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) setting, with the largest gains at near-perceptual-threshold levels (e.g., mild thermal changes, moderate vibration intensities, borderline delay settings) where SR labels are most variable across individuals. Rather than aiming to replace self-reports, these results reveal when EEG-based models align more closely with the physical stimulation than with participants' reports and support using PS-trained decoders as a structured first-stage representation that can later be adapted with user-specific SR information.
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.