Article Search
닫기

Original Article

Split Viewer

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24(3): 258-270

Published online September 25, 2024

https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

© The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems

Comparing Different Classifiers and Features for Electroencephalography-Based Product Preference Recognition

Nasim Alnuman1,2, Samira Al-Nasser1, and Omar Yasin1

1Department of Biomedical Engineering, German-Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan
2School of Allied Medical Sciences, Isra University, Amman, Jordan

Correspondence to :
Nasim Alnuman (Nasim.alnuman@gju.edu.jo)

Received: August 8, 2021; Revised: January 14, 2024; Accepted: September 20, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Brain activity analysis during the visualization of different commercial images can help better understand brain activities and their application in neuromarketing. This study evaluates different electroencephalography (EEG) time- and frequency-domain features within different brain regions with six different classifiers, namely, k-nearest neighbors, pseudo-quadratic discriminant analysis, naïve Bayes, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and decision tree, to determine the best features and brain regions associated with decision-making. An online dataset of 25 users’ responses to 42 products using a 14-channel EEG system was used. The outputs included two classes: like and dislike. Twenty-one features were derived from the preprocessed data using a window size of 1 s for 4 s for the EEG signals. The best-performing classifiers were SVM and RF, and the best features were Willison amplitude (66.9%) and Hjorth complexity (66.3%) using all channels. Furthermore, the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain showed higher accuracy than other regions, and the right frontal lobe was more dominant than the left frontal lobe in relation to product preference decisions and displayed the potential to classify users’ decisions for future simplified systems.

Keywords: Neuromarketing, Product preference, EEG, Classification

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Nasim George Alnuman received his Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from the university of Jordan, Jordan, in 2001 and 2004, respectively. He worked in the industry for 4 years before completing his Ph.D. in 2010 at Darmstadt Technical University, Germany. He is working as an associate professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the German Jordanian university, Jordan. His research interests include prosthetics, biomechanics, assistive devices technologies, biosignals, and rehabilitation. He has several supported projects from Jordan and the European Union.

Samira Al-Nasser received her B.Sc. in Biomedical Engineering from the German Jordanian University, Jordan, and her Ph.D. degree in sensor design using AI with the Department of Design and Engineering at Bournemouth University, the United Kingdom in 2024. Her areas of interest include ANNs, sensor design, and human joints force measurements.

Omar Yasin received his B.Sc. in Electronics Engineering from Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan, in 2004 and M.Sc. in Biomedical Engineering from Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany in 2007. He is working as full-time lecturer in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the German Jordanian University in Jordan.

Article

Original Article

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24(3): 258-270

Published online September 25, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Copyright © The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems.

Comparing Different Classifiers and Features for Electroencephalography-Based Product Preference Recognition

Nasim Alnuman1,2, Samira Al-Nasser1, and Omar Yasin1

1Department of Biomedical Engineering, German-Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan
2School of Allied Medical Sciences, Isra University, Amman, Jordan

Correspondence to:Nasim Alnuman (Nasim.alnuman@gju.edu.jo)

Received: August 8, 2021; Revised: January 14, 2024; Accepted: September 20, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Brain activity analysis during the visualization of different commercial images can help better understand brain activities and their application in neuromarketing. This study evaluates different electroencephalography (EEG) time- and frequency-domain features within different brain regions with six different classifiers, namely, k-nearest neighbors, pseudo-quadratic discriminant analysis, naïve Bayes, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and decision tree, to determine the best features and brain regions associated with decision-making. An online dataset of 25 users’ responses to 42 products using a 14-channel EEG system was used. The outputs included two classes: like and dislike. Twenty-one features were derived from the preprocessed data using a window size of 1 s for 4 s for the EEG signals. The best-performing classifiers were SVM and RF, and the best features were Willison amplitude (66.9%) and Hjorth complexity (66.3%) using all channels. Furthermore, the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain showed higher accuracy than other regions, and the right frontal lobe was more dominant than the left frontal lobe in relation to product preference decisions and displayed the potential to classify users’ decisions for future simplified systems.

Keywords: Neuromarketing, Product preference, EEG, Classification

Fig 1.

Figure 1.

EEG electrodes placement and brain regions [1].

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 2.

Figure 2.

Images displayed to the subjects [16].

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 3.

Figure 3.

EEG preprocessing procedure.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 4.

Figure 4.

Classifier performance for time-domain features.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 5.

Figure 5.

Classifier performance for frequency-domain features.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 6.

Figure 6.

Regions of the brain: RF performance on frequency-domain features.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 7.

Figure 7.

Frontal lobe: RF performance on frequency-domain features.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Fig 8.

Figure 8.

Sample confusion matrix for theWAMP feature using the RF classifier.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24: 258-270https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.258

Share this article on :

Related articles in IJFIS