在外部验证样本中,使用EEG对疼痛和非疼痛图像的主动观看进行机器学习分类没有超过机会。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Tyler Mari, S Hasan Ali, Lucrezia Pacinotti, Sarah Powsey, Nicholas Fallon
{"title":"在外部验证样本中,使用EEG对疼痛和非疼痛图像的主动观看进行机器学习分类没有超过机会。","authors":"Tyler Mari, S Hasan Ali, Lucrezia Pacinotti, Sarah Powsey, Nicholas Fallon","doi":"10.3758/s13415-025-01268-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50672,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"814-831"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning classification of active viewing of pain and non-pain images using EEG does not exceed chance in external validation samples.\",\"authors\":\"Tyler Mari, S Hasan Ali, Lucrezia Pacinotti, Sarah Powsey, Nicholas Fallon\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13415-025-01268-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"814-831\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130162/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01268-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01268-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究表明,机器学习(ML)不能有效地通过使用脑电图(EEG)数据解码中性和疼痛照片的被动观察。因此,本研究探讨了主动观看,即要求参与者参与中性和疼痛刺激的任务,是否能提高机器学习的表现。随机森林(RF)模型在两种选择的强迫选择范式中对皮质事件相关电位(erp)进行训练,参与者在其中确定面部表情和动作场景的照片中是否存在疼痛。模型开发样本招募了62名参与者。此外,还收集了一个由27名受试者组成的受试者内时间验证样本。根据我们之前的研究,我们开发了三种RF模型,将图像分为人脸和场景、中性和疼痛场景、中性和疼痛表情。结果表明,该方法在交叉验证和外部验证中对视觉刺激(人脸和场景)的分类准确率分别为78%和66%。然而,尽管对中性和疼痛场景的分类以及中性和疼痛面孔的分类的交叉验证结果分别为61%和67%,RF模型在外部验证数据集上的共情分类尝试未能超过机会表现。这些结果与之前的研究一致,强调了对复杂状态进行分类的挑战,比如使用erp对疼痛感同身受进行分类。此外,研究结果表明,主动观察并不能比以往的被动研究提高机器学习的性能。未来的研究应优先考虑提高模型性能,以获得超过机会的水平,这将证明增加的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Machine learning classification of active viewing of pain and non-pain images using EEG does not exceed chance in external validation samples.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience (CABN) offers theoretical, review, and primary research articles on behavior and brain processes in humans. Coverage includes normal function as well as patients with injuries or processes that influence brain function: neurological disorders, including both healthy and disordered aging; and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. CABN is the leading vehicle for strongly psychologically motivated studies of brain–behavior relationships, through the presentation of papers that integrate psychological theory and the conduct and interpretation of the neuroscientific data. The range of topics includes perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning, and decision-making; emotional processes, motivation, reward prediction, and affective states; and individual differences in relevant domains, including personality. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience is a publication of the Psychonomic Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信