Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 14;9(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s40708-022-00175-3

Table 4.

A systematic table summarising the machine-learning studies included in the present review, including the features, labels, and algorithms used, as well as the accuracy rates achieved

Citation Features Labels ML algorithms Accuracy rates DOI
Aldayel et al. [2] DEAP dataset, power spectral density and asymmetry Preference ratings DNN, KNN, SVM, RF 0.94, 0.88, 0.62, 0.92 https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041525
Aldayel et al. [3] DEAP dataset, power spectral density Preference ratings KNN, SVM, RF, DNN 0.73, 0.81, 0.87, 0.83 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.604639
Al-Nafjan [6] PCA, mRMR, RFE, ReliefF feature selection algorithms Like/Dislike self-report responses to Commercial products DNN, SVM, KNN, LDA, RF 0.93, 0.81, 0.78, 0.70, 0.82 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.944
Alimardani and Kaba [4] Raw EEG signal Product Choices and movie ratings CNN, Ensemble Model 0.51–0.75, 0.51–0.64 https://doi.org/10.1145/3460881.3460930
Bandara et al. [23] PCA feature selection from power spectral density Movie trailer preference RF, SVC 91.97, 91.70 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIS53135.2021.9660742
Barnett and Cerf [24] EEG cross-brain correlation Product willingness to pay Linear Regression 0.66 https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw083
Bhushan et al. [31] TF synchronisation Binary preference ANN 74.3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043351
Gauba et al. [85] EEG TF effects Video advertisement preference RF, DT, Linear regression 0.68, 0.33, 0.041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2017.01.013
Adrián et al. [1] HR, GSR and EEG TF effects Video advertisement Valence score Logistic Regression, SVM, RF 0.66, 0.67, 0.89 https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2016.00074
Golnar-Nik et al. [87] EEG power Like/dislike ratings SVM, LDA 0.87, 0.90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.04.025
Guo and Elgendi [101] TF effects, prepurchase ratings E-commerce purchase behaviour Recommender system N/A https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.1.1.61–65
Guo et al. [98] ET, and TF power Aesthetic preference SVM, KNN, RF, XGBoost 0.54, 0.61, 0.59. 0.56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.02.006
Guixeres et al. [96] EEG, HRV, ET Youtube advertisement like/dislike and recall scores ANN 0.83 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01808
Hakim et al. [102] Frontal band power, hemispheric asymmetry, inter-subject correlations Product preference SVM, Logistic regression, DT, KNN, 0.69, 0.67, 0.63, 0.60 https://doi.org/10.1101/317073
Hakim et al. [103] Frontal band power, hemispheric asymmetry, inter-subject correlations Product Preference SVM, Logisitic Regression, KNN, TREE 0.69, 0.67, 0.63, 0.60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.10.005
Khushaba et al. [139] Eye-tracking fixation and time–frequency effects Product preference Logistic Regression N/A https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.095
Kumar et al. [151] Raw EEG signal Product valence scores RF 0.74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.11.001
Pandey et al. [206] Discrete Wavelet Transform power and entropy for 5 frequency bands Movie trailer Likert ratings (rating, familiarity, purchase intent, willingness to spend) KNN, RF, MP 0.72, 0.71, 0.67 https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10756
Phutela et al. [210] Wavelet coefficient, power spectral density, and Hjorth parameters Advertisement and product preference NB, SVM, KNN, DT, DL 0.66, 0.66, 0.55, 0.54, 0.55 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07484
Ma et al. [178] ERP Brand extension acceptance rates T-SNE algorithm 0.87 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.610890
Mashrur et al. [185] Frequency, time, and time–frequency metrics over frontal electrodes Purchase intention and affective attitude towards advertisements SVM 0.84 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.861270
Mashrur et al. [186] Frequency, time, and time–frequency metrics over frontal electrodes Affective attitude towards E-commerce products SVM 0.94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2022.113847
Roberts et al. [223] ERP and eye-movements Product willingness to pay Independent component analysis N/A https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00910
Shestyuk et al. [237] Frontal asymmetry (alpha/beta), fronto-central power (alpha/theta + theta/gamma) TV viewership and twitter activity Linear regression, multiple regression 0.63, 0.72 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214507
Soria Morillo et al. [254] Frequency band power Advertisement like/dislike ratings ANN 0.75 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016–0181-2
Soria Morillo et al. [255] Frequency band power Advertisement like/dislike ratings ANN 0.82 https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319–16,480-9_68
Slanzi et al. [251] Gaze position, pupil dilation, and EEG TF Website click choice SVC, logistic regression, neural network 0.69, 0.71, 0.62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2016.09.003
Tyson-Carr et al. [262] ERP and eye-movements Product willingness to pay Independent component analysis N/A https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116213
Ullah et al. [263] Wavelet transformed EEG data E-commerce product like/dislike ratings SVM, DT, KNN, ANN 0.80, 0.68, 0.76, 0.81 https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0130137
Wang et al. [287] EEG and ET data Self-reported preference PCA, Random Lasso, SVM 0.80, 0.75,0.92 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101095
Wei et al., [291] EEF TF data Advertisement effectiveness SVM 0.75 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00076
Yadava et al. [294] EEG TF effects Like/dislike ratings of e-commerce products HMM 0.68 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017–4580-6
Yılmaz et al. [303] Power spectral density Product like/dislike ratings Logistic regression N/A https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.11.010
Zamani and Naieni [307] Band power over five brain lobes Like/dislike ratings of E-commerce products SVM, ANN, RF 0.87, 0.70, 0.81 https://doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v7i3.4621
Zeng et al. [308] Power spectral density, hemispheric asymmetry, differential entropy, Hjorth parameters Sport shoes like/dislike ratings KNN, SVM 0.94, 0.8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.793952
Zheng et al. [313] PSD Emotion classification DNN 0.85 https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2797176
Zhu et al. [314] EEG and ET mixed measures Self-reported preference SVM, RF, CNN 70.26, 72.15, 96.4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101601