Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: A Study of Neural and Behavioural Variability Across Different Recommendation Categories

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Different recommendation categories—Exact, Substitute, Complement, Irrelevant—are decodable from EEG signals and from user ratings, with Exact and Substitute the most similar.

desk verdict Behavioral results are solid, but the neural-signature claim is undermined by the oddball design and a misread FAA value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13409 v1 pith:PW7H4JHC submitted 2025-06-16 cs.IR

Georgios Koutroumpas , Sebastian Idesis , Mireia Masias Bruns , Carlos Segura , Joemon M. Jose , Sergi Abadal , Ioannis Arapakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords RecommenderSystemsElectroencephalographyRecommendationcategoriesESCIlabelsUserstudyBehaviouralanalysisE-commerceNeuralvariability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the category of a product recommendation—Exact, Substitute, Complement, or Irrelevant—leaves a measurable trace in brain activity and in users' own ratings, not just in the recommender's accuracy. Using EEG from nineteen participants who evaluated query-product pairs from an e-commerce corpus, it reports above-chance pairwise classification of the four categories from neural features, with Exact and Substitute the most confusable pair. Behaviourally, Exact and Irrelevant sit at opposite ends of relevance, purchase-likelihood, and diversity ratings, while Substitute and Complement occupy the middle and keep relevance without sacrificing diversity. If the claim holds, recommender systems could move beyond relevance scoring toward user-centred, category-aware, and eventually personalised optimisation.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a within-subjects pairwise classification machinery: a support vector machine trained on one-second EEG windows after each recommendation, with features that include single-trial event-related potentials, power spectral density in delta, theta, alpha and low-beta bands, Kullback-Leibler divergence from mean responses, and signal complexity measures (approximate entropy, Higuchi and Katz fractal dimension, detrended fluctuation analysis), reduced by PCA and evaluated on repeated down-sampled train/test splits. A second layer averages epochs into synthetic ERPs and trains per-channel multilayer perceptrons whose probabilistic outputs feed a logistic-regression meta-classifier for between-subject decoding. The experimental scaffold is an oddball-like trial in which a query is followed by one to three Exact products and then the target recommendation, so Exact is a repetition of the context class and the other categories are deviations from it; this scaffold is what makes the category signals measurable, and also what leaves the novelty confound open.

What would settle it

Run the same task with context products drawn from all four categories in balanced proportions; if pairwise EEG classification of Exact versus Irrelevant (or Exact versus Substitute) collapses to chance when Exact is no longer the repeated baseline, then the reported neural signatures reflect stimulus novelty rather than recommendation semantics. A simpler check: compare classification accuracy between trials with k=1 and k=3 Exact context products, since an oddball effect would grow with the number of repetitions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that recommendation semantics are decodable from the user's brain: pairwise SVM classifiers operating on single-trial EEG features (ERPs, band power, KL divergence, complexity measures) distinguish Exact from Irrelevant recommendations at around 0.545 accuracy before subject exclusions and up to 0.599 afterward, while Exact versus Substitute is consistently the hardest pair (0.524 before exclusions, about 0.567 afterward). Between-subject ERP meta-classifiers reproduce the ordering, with Complement versus Substitute unexpectedly strongest in that setting. Behavioural ratings show significant category effects on relevance, likelihood of purchase, and diversity, and engagement markers (frontal alpha asymmetry, theta and beta power) peak for Exact items. Together the results are interpreted as evidence that the brain treats exact matches and functional substitutes in a closely related way, separates relevant from irrelevant recommendations, and exhibits large inter-subject variability that speaks against one-size-fits-all recommendation strategies.

Load-bearing premise

Every trial shows the user one to three Exact products before the target, so an Exact target repeats the pattern while Substitute, Complement, and Irrelevant targets break it; the paper's central claim assumes that category identity, not that breaking-the-pattern effect, produces the neural differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Recommender systems could use neural signatures of the Exact–Irrelevant distinction as an implicit relevance signal, reducing reliance on clicks and ratings.
  • Because Exact and Substitute produce similar neural and behavioural responses, systems may safely rank substitutes close to exact matches without confusing users.
  • Complement recommendations occupy a middle ground on relevance and diversity, so blending them into result lists can broaden choice without sacrificing perceived quality.
  • Engagement markers (frontal alpha asymmetry, theta and beta power) favour Exact items, giving a physiological target for evaluating recommendation quality.
  • Large inter-subject variability in decoding accuracy implies that category-aware ranking should be personalised rather than globally optimised.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A control experiment that varies the context type (not always Exact) is needed to separate semantic category identity from oddball novelty; the current design cannot rule out that some of the EEG separation is a response to any non-Exact item.
  • If the neural decodability survives that control, EEG-derived labels could be used to improve or re-rank recommendations in categories like Complement, where behavioural ratings alone are ambiguous.
  • The behavioural overlap of Substitute and Complement clusters suggests a testable extension: users may accept a related-items shelf mixing substitutes and complements, provided per-user diversity thresholds are tuned.
  • The between-subject strength of Complement-versus-Substitute decoding hints that semantic association processing is a separate neural axis from relevance; this could be probed with queries that deliberately vary association strength.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a controlled EEG and behavioral study (N=21, 19 after exclusions) in which participants viewed a search query, a sequence of one to three Exact products, and then a target product labeled Exact, Substitute, Complement, or Irrelevant according to the ESCI benchmark. The authors report within-subject pairwise SVM classification accuracies (Tables 2 and 3), between-subject ERP-based meta-classifier accuracies (Table 4), behavioral ratings for relevance, likelihood of purchase, and diversity (Table 5), and engagement metrics including frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA), theta, and beta power (Section 4.3). Their central claims are that recommendation categories evoke differentiable neural signatures, that Exact and Substitute evoke the most similar neural responses, that behavioral ratings distinguish Exact and Irrelevant at the extremes with Substitute and Complement in between, and that FAA/theta/beta index category-dependent engagement. The behavioral analysis is largely convincing, but the neural analyses are compromised by a stimulus-design confound, a post-hoc subject-exclusion procedure, and an internal contradiction in the FAA interpretation.

Significance. If the neural claims were valid, the paper would be a useful first step toward using EEG to study how different recommendation types, beyond binary relevance, are processed, with potential implications for personalized recommender systems. The paper has genuine strengths: it uses real e-commerce data (ESCI labels), a within-subjects design, standard nonparametric tests for the behavioral ratings, and a rich feature exploration. However, the central neural-signature claim is not currently supported. The oddball design means that the target category is confounded with stimulus novelty, the reported classification accuracies are close to chance and partly reflect post-hoc exclusions, and the FAA result as written contradicts the equation defining the measure. The behavioral findings are solid and could stand on their own, but the abstract and contributions place the neural novelty first, so the main scientific contribution is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.4 and §3.4] The design confounds recommendation category with oddball novelty. Every trial presents a query followed by one to three Exact context products before the target recommendation, so an Exact target is a repetition of the context class while Substitute, Complement, and Irrelevant targets are oddball deviations. This is explicitly an oddball paradigm (Section 3.4, citing Sutton et al. 1965). Any EEG differentiation involving Exact, such as the Exact vs. Irrelevant accuracies in Tables 2 and 3 (0.545 and 0.599), could be driven by target-vs-context novelty rather than by semantic recommendation category. The paper's further claim that Exact and Substitute are the most similar is especially vulnerable, because that comparison would pit category similarity against oddball-driven dissimilarity and could yield low accuracy for either reason. The authors need a control condition in which all four categories appear as context products, or an analysis that isolates category identity from repetition/novelty; without this, the neural claims in RQ1 are not supported.
  2. [§4.1.1, Tables 2 and 3] The reported above-chance accuracies are inflated by post-hoc exclusion of non-significant subjects. Table 3 reports mean accuracies after removing individual models with near-chance performance, but the criterion for exclusion appears to be applied after seeing the results, and no pre-registered rule or multiple-comparison correction is described. The unexcluded accuracies in Table 2 are only 0.545–0.549 for the best features, i.e., 9% above chance at most. The statement that these are 'meaningful neurophysiological differences' is therefore too strong. The authors should report classification accuracy on all subjects, with a proper statistical test against chance (e.g., a permutation test at the group level), and treat the post-hoc exclusions only as a hypothesis-generating sensitivity analysis.
  3. [§3.7.3 vs. §4.3] The FAA interpretation is internally inconsistent. Equation (1) defines FAA = log(P_F4) − log(P_F3), and Section 3.7.3 correctly states that higher values indicate greater relative right-frontal activity (withdrawal-related) and lower/negative values indicate left-frontal dominance (approach-related). Section 4.3 then claims that the Exact condition's only positive mean value (Mean = 9.91e-14) indicates 'greater left frontal activity' associated with approach motivation. This directly contradicts the equation and the definition given in the Methods. Moreover, a mean of 9.91e-14 is effectively zero, so it cannot support any claim about hemispheric asymmetry. The authors must correct this misreading of the sign and, more importantly, report the actual effect sizes and confidence intervals for the FAA comparison.
  4. [§3.7.2 and Table 4] The between-subject classification results do not include a significance test against chance. Table 4 reports accuracies from five runs for each comparison, with run-to-run variation that is substantial (e.g., E vs. I: 0.568 ± 0.055; I vs. S: 0.495 ± 0.063), yet the text claims these results are 'comparable to or even higher than' individual models and that certain comparisons 'remain among the top performers.' With only five stochastic runs, a permutation test or a confidence interval against 0.5 is necessary before drawing conclusions. The data augmentation procedure, which multiplies epoch weights by uniform noise in [0.5, 1] to create synthetic ERPs, should also be validated more carefully; as described, it may artificially inflate agreement among the meta-model's training and test samples if the augmentation is not performed independently within each cross-validation fold.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence 'The study used a within-subjects design with one independent variables' contains a grammatical error: 'variables' should be 'variable.'
  2. [Figure 2] The figure presents a single-channel ERP plot (channel Oz) without error bars or the number of participants/trials used to compute the average. The caption 'average neural responses' is insufficiently precise for an EEG result figure.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] The definition of 'Diff (%)' is not stated. The reader must infer that it is (accuracy − 0.5)/0.5; this should be stated in the table caption.
  4. [§4.1.1] The text says 'even after excluding individual models (42%) with near-chance performance'; it is unclear whether 42% refers to subjects or models, and this percentage appears to refer only to the E vs. I comparison, not to all models. The wording should be clarified.
  5. [§3.3.4] Using an LLM (Llama 3) to shorten product descriptions may alter the semantic cues that drive category perception. The paper does not provide any validation that the shortened descriptions preserve the ESCI label distinctions; a small human validation study or example-based consistency check would strengthen the stimulus-construction section.
  6. [General] The paper does not mention whether the data or analysis code will be made available. Given the small sample and the number of analysis choices (band-pass range, PCA variance threshold, MLP regularization, augmentation noise), a data/code availability statement would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neural and behavioural claims are empirical outcomes measured against external ESCI ground truth, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that Exact, Substitute, Complement, and Irrelevant recommendations evoke differentiable EEG signatures and behavioral ratings—are empirical results obtained by recording EEG and self-reports and comparing categories defined by the externally curated ESCI labels (McAuley et al. [43]). No parameter is fitted to the target claim and then renamed as a prediction: the SVM and MLP classifiers are trained and tested on held-out trials or subjects with cross-validation, and the reported accuracies are measured, not derived. The within-subjects analysis uses 70/30 splits, and the between-subjects analysis uses leave-one-subject-out outer cross-validation; the synthetic ERP augmentation is tied to participants assigned to the training side. The ESCI labels are an external ground truth, not an output of the model. The cited prior work, including two papers co-authored by the present authors ([60] and [73]), is used only for contextual claims about diversity and the value of recommender systems and is not load-bearing for the neural-decoding result. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests on ratings are direct statistical comparisons of observed self-reports. There is a genuine validity concern that the design (always preceding targets with Exact context products, per Section 3.4) confounds category identity with repetition and oddball status, but that is a confound in experimental interpretation, not circularity: the paper does not define category identity in terms of EEG outcomes, and the 'prediction' is an empirical classification result rather than an input to the analysis. Under the stated rules, no circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters in a derivation sense; all analysis is empirical. The main hand-chosen settings (regularization alpha, PCA variance threshold, augmentation noise range, band-pass limit) affect the analysis but are not tuned to force a specific conclusion. The key assumptions are that ESCI labels are reliable ground truth, that EEG measures reflect cognitive processing of recommendation meaning, and that the oddball design does not confound category identity; the latter is questionable.

free parameters (4)
  • MLP regularization alpha = 0.05
    Chosen to prevent overfitting in between-subject base models; not fit to maximize accuracy.
  • PCA variance threshold = 99%
    Retained variance for dimensionality reduction in within-subject classification; hand-chosen.
  • ERP augmentation weight noise range = [0.5, 1]
    Random factor scaling epoch weights when generating synthetic ERPs; hand-chosen to model uncontrolled variability.
  • Band-pass filter range = 0.5-20 Hz
    Based on the authors' preliminary spectral analysis; frequencies above 20 Hz showed minimal task-related variation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ESCI labels accurately represent query-product relevance categories
    Ground truth for the four categories comes from the Shopping Queries dataset (Reddy et al., 2022), and the analysis treats these labels as correct.
  • domain assumption EEG features (ERP, PSD, complexity) are valid proxies for cognitive processing of recommendation categories
    Standard neuro-IS assumption; cited literature supports these measures for relevance and engagement.
  • domain assumption The oddball paradigm is an appropriate model for recommendation processing
    The experiment uses an oddball-like structure (Section 3.4), assuming that the neural response to a deviant target is comparable to real recommendation browsing.
  • domain assumption Self-reports (Relevance, Purchaseability, Diversity) reflect user perception
    The behavioral analysis relies on Likert ratings as valid measures of user perception.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: A Study of Neural and Behavioural Variability Across Different Recommendation Categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW7H4JHC

@misc{pith2026250613409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: A Study of Neural and Behavioural Variability Across Different Recommendation Categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW7H4JHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13409}
}
read the original abstract

Traditionally, Recommender Systems (RS) have primarily measured performance based on the accuracy and relevance of their recommendations. However, this algorithmic-centric approach overlooks how different types of recommendations impact user engagement and shape the overall quality of experience. In this paper, we shift the focus to the user and address for the first time the challenge of decoding the neural and behavioural variability across distinct recommendation categories, considering more than just relevance. Specifically, we conducted a controlled study using a comprehensive e-commerce dataset containing various recommendation types, and collected Electroencephalography and behavioural data. We analysed both neural and behavioural responses to recommendations that were categorised as Exact, Substitute, Complement, or Irrelevant products within search query results. Our findings offer novel insights into user preferences and decision-making processes, revealing meaningful relationships between behavioural and neural patterns for each category, but also indicate inter-subject variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stimuli examples: (a) Query “Avengers night light”; (b) Exact recommendation; (c) Substitute recommendation (Marvel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example Event Related Potential (ERP) showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of single-trial experimental protocol. Each participant performs 120 trials. In each trial, the participant is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy plots of the best performing feature combination per condition, according to Table 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean base-models’ accuracy per electrode and category comparison ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plots comparing average rating scores including Pearson Correlation values between ratings (each dot represents mean score per stimulus, per category). 4.3 Engagement profiling This section addresses RQ3: Can we identify neurophysiological markers of engagement…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Engagement across recommendation categories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Haider Abdulkarim and Mohammed Al-Faiz. 2021. Online multiclass EEG feature extraction and recognition using modified convolutional neural network method. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering11 (05 2021), 4016–

    2021

  2. [2]

    Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the next gen- eration of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions.Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on17 (07 2005), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.99

    doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.99 2005

  3. [3]

    Mashael Aldayel, Mourad Ykhlef, and Abeer Al-Nafjan. 2020. Deep learning for EEG-based preference classification in neuromarketing.Applied Sciences10, 4 (2020), 1525

    2020

  4. [4]

    Ashton Anderson, Lucas Maystre, Ian Anderson, Rishabh Mehrotra, and Mounia Lalmas. 2020. Algorithmic Effects on the Diversity of Consumption on Spotify. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020(Taipei, Taiwan)(WWW ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2155–2165. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3366423.3380281

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Diego Antognini, Claudiu Musat, and Boi Faltings. 2021. Interacting with Explanations through Critiquing. InProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, Zhi-Hua Zhou (Ed.). Inter- national Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 515–521. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/72 Main Track

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/72 2021

  6. [6]

    Diego Antognini, Claudiu Cristian Musat, and Boi Faltings. 2020. T-RECS: a Transformer-based Recommender Generating Textual Explanations and Inte- grating Unsupervised Language-based Critiquing.ArXivabs/2005.11067 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:218863076

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Bandara, Uvini C

    Sathsarani K. Bandara, Uvini C. Wijesinghe, Badra P. Jayalath, Saumya K. Bandara, Prasanna S. Haddela, and Lumini M. Wickramasinghe. 2021. EEG Based Neuromarketing Recommender System for Video Commercials. In2021 IEEE 16th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIS53135.2021.9660742

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Kurt Barbe, Rik Pintelon, and Johan Schoukens. 2009. Welch method revisited: nonparametric power spectrum estimation via circular overlap.IEEE Transactions on signal processing58, 2 (2009), 553–565

    work page 2009

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Catarina Barros, Ana Rita Pereira, Adriana Sampaio, Ana Buján, and Diego Pinal

  2. [10]

    2006.Rhythms of the Brain

    Gyorgy Buzsaki. 2006.Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford university press

    2006

  3. [11]

    György Buzsáki and Fernando Lopes da Silva. 2012. High frequency oscillations in the intact brain.Progress in neurobiology98, 3 (2012), 241–249

    2012

  4. [12]

    Mark Claypool, Phong Le, Makoto Wased, and David Brown. 2001. Implicit interest indicators. InProceedings of the 6th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 33–40

    2001

  5. [13]

    Aminu Da’u and Naomie Salim. 2020. Recommendation system based on deep learning methods: a systematic review and new directions.Artificial Intelligence Review53, 4 (2020), 2709–2748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09744-1

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Davis, Michiel Spape, and Tuukka Ruotsalo

    Keith M. Davis, Michiel Spape, and Tuukka Ruotsalo. 2023. Contradicted by the Brain: Predicting Individual and Group Preferences via Brain-Computer Interfacing.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing14, 4 (2023), 3094–3105. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3225885

    2023

  7. [15]

    Yashar Deldjoo, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, Anton Korikov, Scott Sanner, Arnau Ramisa, René Vidal, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, and Silvia Milano. 2024. A Review of Modern Recommender Systems Using Generative Models (Gen-RecSys). arXiv:2404.00579 [cs.IR] https:...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Esteller, G

    R. Esteller, G. Vachtsevanos, J. Echauz, and B. Litt. 2001. A comparison of waveform fractal dimension algorithms.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications48, 2 (2001), 177–183. https: //doi.org/10.1109/81.904882

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    Manuel Eugster, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Michiel Spapé, Ilkka Kosunen, Oswald Barral, Niklas Ravaja, Giulio Jacucci, and Samuel Kaski. 2014. Predicting term-relevance from brain signals. (07 2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2600428.2609594

    2014

  10. [18]

    Chen Gao. 2022. Causal Inference in Recommender Systems: A Survey and Future Directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12397(Dec 2022). Version 2

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ian H Gotlib. 1998. EEG alpha asymmetry, depression, and cognitive functioning. Cognition & Emotion12, 3 (1998), 449–478

    1998

  12. [20]

    Engemann, Daniel Strohmeier, Christian Brodbeck, Roman Goj, Mainak Jas, Teon Brooks, Lauri Parkkonen, and Matti S

    Alexandre Gramfort, Martin Luessi, Eric Larson, Denis A. Engemann, Daniel Strohmeier, Christian Brodbeck, Roman Goj, Mainak Jas, Teon Brooks, Lauri Parkkonen, and Matti S. Hämäläinen. 2013. MEG and EEG Data Analysis with MNE-Python.Frontiers in Neuroscience7, 267 (2013), 1–13....

    2013

  13. [21]

    Anjum Gupta, Shibin Parameswaran, and Cheng-Han Lee. 2009. Classification of electroencephalography (EEG) signals for different mental activities using Kullback Leibler (KL) divergence, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Proc...

    2009

  14. [22]

    Hada, Vijaikumar M., and Shirish K

    Deepesh V. Hada, Vijaikumar M., and Shirish K. Shevade. 2021. ReXPlug: Explain- able Recommendation using Plug-and-Play Language Model. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Infor- mation Retrieval(Virtual Event, Canada)(SI...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Laura K Halderman, Bridgid Finn, JR Lockwood, Nicole M Long, and Michael J Kahana. 2021. EEG correlates of engagement during assessment.ETS Research Report Series2021, 1 (2021), 1–17

    2021

  16. [24]

    Eddie Harmon-Jones, Philip A Gable, and Carly K Peterson. 2010. The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: A review and update.Biological psychology84, 3 (2010), 451–462

    2010

  17. [25]

    Yujing Hu, Qing Da, Anxiang Zeng, Yang Yu, and Yinghui Xu. 2018. Reinforce- ment learning to rank in e-commerce search engine: Formalization, analysis, and application. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 368–377

    2018

  18. [26]

    Yifan Hu, Yehuda Koren, and Chris Volinsky. 2008. Collaborative Filtering for Implicit Feedback Datasets. In2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2008.22

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Ibáñez-Molina and S

    A.J. Ibáñez-Molina and S. Iglesias-Parro. 2014. Fractal characterization of inter- nally and externally generated conscious experiences.Brain and Cognition87 (2014), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.002

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Sheena S Iyengar and Mark R Lepper. 1999. Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation.Journal of personality and social psychology76, 3 (1999), 349

    1999

  21. [29]

    Giulio Jacucci, Oswald Barral, Pedram Daee, Markus Wendt, Baris Serim, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Patrik Pluchino, Jonathan Freeman, Luciano Gamberini, Samuel Kaski, and Benjamin Blankertz. 2019. Integrating neurophysiologic relevance feed- back in intent modeling for information retrie...

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Gawesh Jawaheer, Martin Szomszor, and Patty Kostkova. 2010. Comparison of implicit and explicit feedback from an online music recommendation service. In proceedings of the 1st international workshop on information heterogeneity and fusion in recommender systems. 47–51

    2010

  23. [31]

    Gawesh Jawaheer, Peter Weller, and Patty Kostkova. 2014. Modeling user pref- erences in recommender systems: A classification framework for explicit and implicit user feedback.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 4, 2 (2014), 1–26

    2014

  24. [32]

    Hyeyoung Ko, Suyeon Lee, Yoonseo Park, and Anna Choi. 2022. A Survey of Rec- ommendation Systems: Recommendation Models, Techniques, and Application Fields.Electronics11, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11010141

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Lukas Lerche. 2016. Using implicit feedback for recommender systems: charac- teristics, applications, and challenges. (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Jiacheng Li, Zhankui He, Jingbo Shang, and Julian McAuley. 2023. UCEpic: Unifying Aspect Planning and Lexical Constraints for Generating Explana- tions in Recommendation. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining(Long Beach, CA, U...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2021. Personalized Transformer for Explain- able Recommendation.ArXivabs/2105.11601 (2021). https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:235187032

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2023. Personalized Prompt Learning for Explainable Recommendation.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.41, 4, Article 103 (March 2023), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580488

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Sukun Li and Xiaoxing Liu. 2022. Toward a BCI-Based Personalized Recommender System Using Deep Learning. In2022 IEEE 8th Intl Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity), IEEE Intl Conference on High Performance and Smart Computing, (HPSC) and IEEE Intl Conferen...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Tengfei Liang, Zhonghua Hu, and Qiang Liu. 2017. Frontal Theta Activity Sup- ports Detecting Mismatched Information in Visual Working Memory.Frontiers in Psychology8 (10 2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01821

    2017

  31. [39]

    Claudia Lindig-León, Sylvain Rimbert, and Laurent Bougrain. 2020. Multiclass Classification Based on Combined Motor Imageries.Frontiers in Neuroscience14 (2020), 559858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.559858 Published 2020 Nov 19

    2020

  32. [40]

    Fabien Lotte, Laurent Bougrain, Andrzej Cichocki, Maureen Clerc, Marco Con- gedo, Alain Rakotomamonjy, and Florian Yger. 2018. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update.Journal of neural engineering15, 3 (2018), 031005

    2018

  33. [41]

    Michael L Mack, Alison R Preston, and Bradley C Love. 2020. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex compression during concept learning.Nat. Commun.11, 1 (Jan. 2020), 46

    2020

  34. [42]

    Mack, Alison R

    Michael L. Mack, Alison R. Preston, and Bradley C. Love. 2020. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex compression during concept learning.Nature Communications 11, 1 (2020), 46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13930-8

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Julian McAuley, Rahul Pandey, and Jure Leskovec. 2015. Inferring Networks of Substitutable and Complementary Products. InProceedings of the 21th ACM Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: A Study of Neural and Behavioural Variability Across Different Recommendation Categories Conference ac...

    2015

  36. [44]

    Yashar Moshfeghi and Frank Pollick. 2021. Neural Correlates of Realisation of Satisfaction in a Successful Search Process.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology58 (10 2021), 282–291. https://doi.org/10. 1002/pra2.456

    2021

  37. [45]

    Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying Recommendations using Distantly-Labeled Reviews and Fine-Grained Aspects. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural...

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Nolan, R

    H. Nolan, R. Whelan, and R. B. Reilly. 2010. FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection.Journal of Neuroscience Methods192, 1 (2010), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.015

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    Oard and Jinmook Kim

    Douglas W. Oard and Jinmook Kim. 1998. Implicit Feedback for Recommender Systems. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8987583

    1998

  40. [48]

    Spiro P Pantazatos, Ted K Yanagihara, Xian Zhang, Thomas Meitzler, and Joy Hirsch. 2012. Frontal-occipital connectivity during visual search.Brain Connect. 2, 3 (July 2012), 164–175

    2012

  41. [49]

    Pappalettera, A

    C. Pappalettera, A. Cacciotti, L. Nucci, F. Miraglia, P. M. Rossini, and F. Vecchio

  42. [50]

    Krupa Patel and Hiren B. Patel. 2020. A state-of-the-art survey on recommenda- tion system and prospective extensions.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 178 (2020), 105779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105779

    2020

  43. [51]

    Jonathan Peirce, Jeremy R Gray, Sol Simpson, Michael MacAskill, Richard Höchen- berger, Hiroyuki Sogo, Erik Kastman, and Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv. 2019. Psy- choPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy.Behavior research methods51 (2019), 195–203

    2019

  44. [52]

    C.-K. Peng, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, M. Simons, H. E. Stanley, and A. L. Goldberger

  45. [53]

    Alexandre Pereda-Baños, Ioannis Arapakis, and Miguel Barreda-Ángeles. 2015. On Human Information Processing in Information Retrieval (Position Paper). In SIGIR Workshop on Neuro-Physiological Methods in IR Research (NeuroIR). ACM

    2015

  46. [54]

    McGeown, and Yashar Moshfeghi

    Zuzana Pinkosova, William J. McGeown, and Yashar Moshfeghi. 2023. Revis- iting Neurological Aspects of Relevance: An EEG Study. InMachine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science. Springer Nature Switzerland

    2023

  47. [55]

    Yuanpeng Qu and Hajime Nobuhara. 2024. Generating Explanations for Explain- able Recommendations Using Filter-Enhanced Time-Series Information.IEEE Access12 (2024), 78480–78495. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3408252

    2024

  48. [56]

    Reddy, Lluís Màrquez, Fran Valero, Nikhil Rao, Hugo Zaragoza, Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, Arnab Biswas, Anlu Xing, and Karthik Subbian

    Chandan K. Reddy, Lluís Màrquez, Fran Valero, Nikhil Rao, Hugo Zaragoza, Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, Arnab Biswas, Anlu Xing, and Karthik Subbian. 2022. Shopping Queries Dataset: A Large-Scale ESCI Benchmark for Improving Product Search. arXiv:2206.06588 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/...

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Spapé, and Luis A

    Tuukka Ruotsalo, Kalle Mäkelä, Michiel M. Spapé, and Luis A. Leiva. 2023. Af- fective Relevance: Inferring Emotional Responses via fNIRS Neuroimaging. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’23)...

    2023

  50. [58]

    Barry Schwartz. 2004. The paradox of choice: Why less is more.New York: Ecco (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Tanu Srivastava, Shilpi Singh, and Sanjeev Bhardwaj. 2013. Support vector machine technique for EEG signals.International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications3, 1 (2013), 533–538

    2013

  52. [60]

    Dusan Stamenkovic, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Ioannis Arapakis, Xin Xin, and Kleomenis Katevas. 2021. Choosing the Best of Both Worlds: Diverse and Novel Recommendations through Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning.CoRR abs/2110.15097 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15097

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Abdulhamit Subasi, Ahmet Alkaya, Rahime Keskin, and Etem Koklukaya. 2017. Classification of EEG signals based on pattern recognition approach.International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology27, 3 (2017), 213–221

    2017

  54. [62]

    Samuel Sutton, Margery Braren, Joseph Zubin, and ER John. 1965. Evoked- potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty.Science150, 3700 (1965), 1187–1188

    1965

  55. [63]

    Bella Tadson, Jared Boasen, François Courtemanche, Noémie Beauchemin, Alexander-John Karran, Pierre-Majorique Léger, and Sylvain Sénécal. 2023. Neuro-Adaptive Interface System to Evaluate Product Recommendations in the Context of E-Commerce. InDesign Science Research for a New...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Shaohua Tang and Zheng Li. 2024. EEG complexity measures for detecting mind wandering during video-based learning.Scientific Reports14, 1 (8 4 2024), 8209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58889-9

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Jorgensen, and Sanghag Kim

    Ryan Thibodeau, Randall S. Jorgensen, and Sanghag Kim. 2006. Depression, anxiety, and resting frontal EEG asymmetry: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Abnormal Psychology115, 4 (2006), 715–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 843X.115.4.715

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    Miller, Jeff Huang, and Ben D

    Shaun Wallace, Zoya Bylinskii, Jonathan Dobres, Bernard Kerr, Sam Berlow, Rick Treitman, Nirmal Kumawat, Kathleen Arpin, Dave B. Miller, Jeff Huang, and Ben D. Sawyer. 2022. Towards Individuated Reading Experiences: Different Fonts Increase Reading Speed for Different Individu...

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    Chun-Shu Wei, Yuan-Pin Lin, Yu-Te Wang, Tzyy-Ping Jung, Nima Bigdely-Shamlo, and Chin-Teng Lin. 2016. Classification of motor imagery EEG signals with support vector machines and particle swarm optimization.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine2016 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Ryen W White, Joemon M Jose, Ian Ruthven, EM Voorhees, and DK Harman

  61. [69]

    An Yan, Chaosheng Dong, Yan Gao, Jinmiao Fu, Tong Zhao, Yi Sun, and Ju- lian McAuley. 2022. Personalized complementary product recommendation. (2022). https://www.amazon.science/publications/personalized-complementary- product-recommendation

    2022

  62. [70]

    Banghua Yang, Fenqi Rong, Yunlong Xie, Du Li, Jiayang Zhang, Fu Li, Guangming Shi, and Xiaorong Gao. 2025. A multi-day and high-quality EEG dataset for motor imagery brain-computer interface.Scientific Data12, 1 (2025), 488. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04826-y

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    Ziyi Ye, Qingyao Ai, and Yiqun Liu. 2024. Brain-Computer Interface Meets Information Retrieval: Perspective on Next-generation Information System. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) for Multimedia Understanding. 61–65

    2024

  64. [72]

    Ziyi Ye, Xiaohui Xie, Yiqun Liu, Zhihong Wang, Xuancheng Li, Jiaji Li, Xuesong Chen, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2022. Why Don’t You Click: Understanding Non-Click Results in Web Search with Brain Signals. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Researc...

    2022

  65. [73]

    Fajie Yuan, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Ioannis Arapakis, Joemon M Jose, and Xi- angnan He. 2019. A simple convolutional generative network for next item recommendation. InProceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 582–590

    2019

  66. [74]

    Yingchun Zhang, Xin Wang, Yiwen Jiang, and Xiaowei Xu. 2024. EEGGAN- Net: enhancing EEG signal classification through data augmentation framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience18 (2024), 1430086. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnhum.2024.1430086

    2024

  67. [75]

    Yong Zhang, Yong Wang, Jianting Jin, and Xingyu Wang. 2020. EEG signal classi- fication based on SVM with improved squirrel search algorithm.Computational intelligence and neuroscience2020 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    M. A. Zúñiga, Á. Acero-González, J. C. Restrepo-Castro, M. Á. Uribe-Laverde, D. A. Botero-Rosas, B. I. Ferreras, M. C. Molina-Borda, and M. P. Villa-Reyes. 2024. Is EEG Entropy a Useful Measure for Alzheimer’s Disease?Actas Esp Psiquiatr (2024). https://doi.org/10.62641/aep.v52i3.1632

    2024 doi

  69. [1689]

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.1685

    Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.1685

    doi

  70. [1994]

    Mosaic organization of DNA nucleotides.Phys. Rev. E49 (Feb 1994), 1685–

    1994

  71. [2002]

    InProceedings of the tenth text retrieval conference (TREC-10)

    Comparing explicit and implicit feedback techniques for web retrieval: Trec-10 interactive track report. InProceedings of the tenth text retrieval conference (TREC-10)

  72. [2022]

    Frontal alpha asymmetry and negative Mood: a cross-sectional study in older and younger adults.Symmetry14, 8 (2022), 1579

    2022

  73. [2023]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00710-4

    Approximate entropy analysis across electroencephalographic rhythmic frequency bands during physiological aging of human brain.Geroscience45, 2 (April 2023), 1131–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00710-4

    2023 doi

  74. [4026]

    https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v11i5.pp4016-4026

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.