Neuromarketing and Its Challenges and Limitations: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ahmed H. Alsharif
,
Nor Zafir Md Salleh
,
Alharthi Rami Hashem E
,
Ahmad Khraiwish
,
Lennora Putit
,
Lily Suriani Mohd Arif

Neuromarketing is a hybrid field involving three main fields: neuroscience, psychology, and marketing. Neuromarketing uses neuroscience technology (e.g., electroencephalography (EEG)) to study, explore, and understand consumers’ unconscious behavior in response to marketing and advertising research. Neuromarketing refers to the academic use of neuroscience to study and better understand the neural and physiological responses of the customer, such as decision making, emotions, attention, and memory, in response to marketing stimuli including television advertisements.

  • neuromarketing
  • challenges
  • limitations
  • consumer behavior
  • neuroscience

1. Introduction

Researchers and marketers have largely relied on traditional marketing methods, such as self-report measurements, to assess and understand consumers’ behavior toward marketing practices such as advertising [1][2]. This is despite the fact that traditional marketing methods do not provide reliable, valid, and generalizable information about consumers’ unconscious behavior (e.g., decision making and emotion) [3]. According to Zaltman [4], approximately 90% of consumer behavior, such as thinking and emotion, happens unconsciously or subconsciously. Additionally, Thuermer [5] mentioned that there is a significant split between the conscious processes, which drive advertising practices and market research, and the unconscious processes (e.g., emotion), which drive most decision-making processes. As Bargh and Morsella [6], and Morsella and Bargh [7], mentioned, the unconscious is a total lack of awareness, such as when you are anesthetized, while the subconscious is defined as “one level below conscious awareness” [8], for example, emotions. Recently, subconscious behavior has been more significant in marketing practices such as advertising activities [9][10][11]. Accordingly, many researchers and practitioners have become interested in exploring consumers’ unconscious behaviors in response to marketing practices [3][12]. A novel approach called “neuromarketing” was coined in 2002, and defined as the neuroscience technology implementation in marketing by Professor Smidts [13].
Neuromarketing uses neuroscience technology (e.g., electroencephalography (EEG)) to study, explore, and understand consumers’ unconscious behavior in response to marketing and advertising research [14][15][16]. Thus, academia and industry have investigated how marketing research can benefit from applying neuromarketing to develop advertising campaigns and marketing research [17]. As mentioned by Witchalls [18], “The ultimate goal of neuromarketing is to identify a ‘buy button’ in the brain which can be targeted and triggered by future commercials” [19]. Interest in the term “neuromarketing” has experienced rapid growth in the last ten years [20][21][22][23]. Therefore, neuromarketing has induced great interest among academia and professionals for providing more accurate information about consumers’ unconscious responses (e.g., emotion, attitudes, preferences, and motivation) in response to marketing stimuli [24][25][26].

2. Neuromarketing

Neuromarketing is a hybrid field involving three main fields: neuroscience, psychology, and marketing [27][28][29][30]. We have selected several definitions of neuromarketing based on the focus of the paper. This definition refers to the application of neuroscience tools in the marketing context that actually reflect the obstacles, challenges, and limitations for social science researchers in conducting research using these tools, which include fMRI (see Table 1). Even though the neuromarketing term emerged in 2002, it had been used previously to understand consumers’ responses to products and to address the marketing issues of several companies, including Pepsi Co. [12][31]. In Malaysia, the first use of the EEG tool in the business field, such as for advertisements, was in 2016 by Samsuri et al. [32].
Table 1. The summary of the neuromarketing concept.
Refs. Definition
[13] The application of neuroscience tools in the business field.
[33] A research tool that gives direct observations of brain responses to marketing stimuli such as advertising.
[20] The application of neuroimaging techniques toward product marketing.
[34][35] Neuromarketing is consumer neuroscience.
[36] The use of neuroscience and physiological techniques to gain new insights into consumers’ behavior, preferences, decision making, and other aspects of human cognition and behavior related to marketing.

Neuromarketing tools have enabled the recording of neural signals and mapping of individuals’ brain activity [37][38], and the interactions between individuals and the environment [39]. Neuromarketing tools can be classified due to the sort of measurement [40][41][42][43]. Therefore, according to Ramsoy [44], neuromarketing tools are divided into four categories, as follows: (i) neuroimaging tools, (ii) physiological tools, (iii) behavioral measurements, and (iv) self-report methods (Table 2).

Table 2. Classification of neuromarketing tools.
Classification Tools
Neuroimaging fMRI, PET, fNIRS, EEG, MEG, SST, SPET
Physiological ECG, ET, EMG, GSR
Self-report Surveys, interviews, focus groups
Behavioral IAT
Sources: Adopted from Ramsoy [44]. fMRI; functional magnetic resonance imaging, PET; positron emission tomography, fNIRS; functional near-infrared spectroscopy, EEG; electroencephalography, MEG; magnetoencephalography, SST; steady-state topography, SPET; single-photon emission tomography, ECG; electrocardiogram, ET; eye-tracking, EMG; electromyography, GSR; galvanic skin response, IAT; implicit association test.
In the last decade, neuromarketing research has experienced remarkable growth in its use of neuroimaging tools [14][20][45][46] to tap into advanced neuroscience technology, which is used in advertising research to measure the neural responses of consumers’ behavior [11]. Neuromarketing research has been expanded to study, explain, and predict consumers’ unconscious behavior in response to stimuli including advertising [12][47]. Therefore, it also provides more accurate information than conventional methods about consumers’ unconscious behavior and emotional and cognitive processes in response to advertisements, brands, and products [42][48][49][50].
Neuromarketing’s contributions often help to improve brand and advertising strategies [51], for example, creating more successful social advertising campaigns (i.e., encouraging the use of seat belts in cars) [52] and antismoking campaigns [53][54][55]. According to Mileti et al. [56] and Ramos et al. [57], neuromarketing has become a significant academic and industrial field, which is used to integrate data from neuroscience and functional neuroimaging with marketing research.
In summary, neuromarketing refers to the academic use of neuroscience to study and better understand the neural and physiological responses of the customer, such as decision making, emotions, attention, and memory, in response to marketing stimuli including television advertisements.

3. Challenges and Limitations of Neuromarketing

Companies and firms hope to find new methods to understand what is in consumers’ minds to meet their needs, and increase the company’s stock value and profits [12]. Accordingly, the technological advancement in neuroscience tools (i.e., fMRI and EEG) has led companies to use these tools in their research to understand better consumers’ unconscious behavior [3][43]. Witchalls [18] mentioned that “The ultimate goal of neuromarketing is to identify a ‘buy button’ in the brain which can be targeted and triggered by future commercials” [19]. That has led society and academia (e.g., researchers, journalists, and media) to discuss the ethical concerns (e.g., privacy) regarding the use of these high-tech tools to potentially find a “buy button” in a consumer’s brain [58][59][60][61][62], thereby influencing or even manipulating consumers’ decisions [63][64]. Additionally, researchers and journalists have argued whether these expensive tools should be used in the business field rather than being used to study diseases such as autism and cancer. Therefore, new challenges and limitations include ethical issues such as privacy and confidentiality [60][65]. Additionally, neuromarketing techniques can be used to manipulate consumer behavior, raising concerns about consumer autonomy and the manipulation of people’s decision-making abilities [11][65]. The use of neuromarketing techniques for unethical or harmful purposes, such as promoting products that are harmful to health (e.g., tobacco and alcohol), is also a concern [65][66]. Thus, the concerns about neuromarketing power have led some governments to take concrete procedures to address the misuse of neuroscience tools [60][67][68]. For instance, the French parliament revised its 2004 rules on bioethics, which were amended/modified to read: “brain-imaging techniques can be used only for medical or scientific research purposes or in the context of court expertise” [19]. Neuroscientists and neuromarketers should consider ethical issues in their academic and professional research [69]. Thus, companies must comply with rules and ethics issues [70].
Other interesting points have been discussed by Plassmann et al. [34], as follows: (i) Neuroscience studies present correlational evidence rather than causal evidence, thereby providing information to better understand the consumers’ brains. Hence, they suggested using neuroimaging or physiological tools to improve the measurements of consumers’ behaviors and interpretations. (ii) The sample of neuroscientific research is quite small, which leads to a lack of generalizability and reliability of the experiments’ findings; for example, the sample size of each experiment is between 15 and 30 participants, with the purpose of presenting relevant evidence in the specific case [71][72]. (iii) Most outcomes’ interpretations rely on researchers’ assumptions about the function of a specific region in the brain based on previous experiments and findings; in contrast to the presumption that the brain regions are separated, the brain regions are linked together based on a previous study. In other words, it has been observed that the activity regions in the brain are connected to a particular cognitive or affective process, but whether this activity is connected to other cognitive or affective processes (i.e., a reverse inference) has not been examined [12][34][73].
In addition, there are several limitations and challenges to conducting neuromarketing research in Malaysia. Some of these limitations and challenges include: (i) Lack of expertise: Neuromarketing is a relatively new field, and there may be a lack of experts in neuromarketing research in Malaysian. This may make it difficult for researchers to conduct such research or to attract researchers with the necessary skills and experience [27]. (ii) Lack of accessibility to resources: One of the barriers to conducting neuromarketing research in Malaysia and other developing countries may be the lack of accessibility to resources (e.g., equipment and technology) [27]. (iii) High costs: Neuromarketing research can be expensive, as it often involves the use of specialized equipment and technology, such as brain imaging equipment. This may make it difficult for researchers in Malaysia to conduct such research [27].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15054603

References

  1. Tallis, R.; Taylor, M. Neuromania? JSTOR: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  2. Vecchiato, G.; Borghini, G.; Aricò, P.; Graziani, I.; Maglione, A.G.; Cherubino, P.; Babiloni, F. Investigation of the effect of EEG-BCI on the simultaneous execution of flight simulation and attentional tasks. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2016, 54, 1503–1513.
  3. Alvino, L.; Pavone, L.; Abhishta, A.; Robben, H. Picking your brains: Where and how neuroscience tools can enhance marketing research. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 577666.
  4. Zaltman, G. Consumer researchers: Take a hike! J. Consum. Res. 2000, 26, 423–428.
  5. Thuermer, S. Consumers: Driven by unconscious forces! Master Thesis, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2012.
  6. Bargh, J.A.; Morsella, E. The unconscious mind. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 3, 73–79.
  7. Morsella, E.; Bargh, J.A. Unconscious mind. Corsini Encycl. Psychol. 2010, 310, 30–37.
  8. Rezaee, M.; Farahian, M. Subconscious vs. unconscious learning: A short review of the terms. Am. J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2015, 2, 98–100.
  9. Anuar, N.N.A.; Isa, S.M.; Mansor, A.A. Subconscious response on marketing mix for green and non-green goods: A neuromarketing study. Res. Conf. Natl. Int. (RCNI) 2021, 1, 73–83.
  10. Vecchiato, G.; Cherubino, P.; Trettel, A.; Babiloni, F. Neuroelectrical Brain Imaging Tools for the Study of the Efficacy of TV Advertising Stimuli and Their Application to Neuromarketing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
  11. Ahmed, H.A.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R.; Hashem, E.A.R.; Mansor, A.A.; Ali, J.; Abbas, A.F. Neuroimaging Techniques in Advertising Research: Main Applications, Development, and Brain Regions and Processes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6488.
  12. Cherubino, P.; Martinez-Levy, A.C.; Caratu, M.; Cartocci, G.; Di Flumeri, G.; Modica, E.; Rossi, D.; Mancini, M.; Trettel, A. Consumer behaviour through the eyes of neurophysiological measures: State of the art and future trends. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2019, 3, 1976847.
  13. Smidts, A. Kijken in Het Brein: Over de Mogelijkheden van Neuromarketing; Erasmus Research Institute of Management: Rotterdam, The Netherland, 2002.
  14. Venkatraman, V.; Dimoka, A.; Pavlou, P.A.; Vo, K.; Hampton, W.; Bollinger, B.; Hershfield, H.E.; Ishihara, M.; Winer, R.S. Predicting advertising success beyond traditional measures: New insights from neurophysiological methods and market response modeling. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 52, 436–452.
  15. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Ahmad, W.A.b.W.; Khraiwish, A. Biomedical Technology in Studying Consumers’ Subconscious Behavior. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2022, 18, 98–114.
  16. Ahmed, H.A.; NorZafir, M.S.; Rohaizat, B.; Mehdi, S. Neuromarketing approach: An overview and future research directions. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2020, 98, 991–1001.
  17. Plassmann, H.; Ramsoy, T.Z.; Milosavljevic, M. Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 18–36.
  18. Witchalls, C. Pushing The Buy Button. Available online: https://www.newsweek.com/pushing-buy-button-123737 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  19. Spence, C. On the ethics of neuromarketing and sensory marketing. In Organizational Neuroethics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 9–29.
  20. Lina, P.; Ahmed, H.A.; Alharbi, I.B. Scientometric analysis of scientific literature on neuromarketing tools in advertising. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2022, 8, 1–12.
  21. Du Plessis, E. The Branded Mind: What Neuroscience really Tells Us about the Puzzle of the Brain and the Brand; Kogan Page Publishers: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011.
  22. Pradeep, A.K. The Buying Brain: Secrets for Selling to the Subconscious Mind; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  23. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R.; Alharthi, R.H.E. Neuromarketing research in the last five years: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1978620.
  24. Verhulst, N.; Vermeir, I.; Slabbinck, H.; Lariviere, B.; Mauri, M.; Russo, V. A neurophysiological exploration of the dynamic nature of emotions during the customer experience. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102217.
  25. Hamelin, N.; Thaichon, P.; Abraham, C.; Driver, N.; Lipscombe, J.; Pillai, J. Storytelling, the scale of persuasion and retention: A neuromarketing approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102099.
  26. Hamelin, N.; El Moujahid, O.; Thaichon, P. Emotion and advertising effectiveness: A novel facial expression analysis approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 36, 103–111.
  27. Mansor, A.A.; Isa, S.M. Fundamentals of neuromarketing: What is it all about? Neurosci. Res. Notes 2020, 3, 22–28.
  28. Javor, A.; Koller, M.; Lee, N.; Chamberlain, L.; Ransmayr, G. Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: Contributions to neurology. BMC Neurol. 2013, 13, 13.
  29. Ahmed, H.A.; NorZafir, M.S.; Rohaizat, B.; Hassan, A.; Rami, H.E.A. A global research trends of neuromarketing: 2015–2020. Rev. De Comun. 2022, 21, 15–32.
  30. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R. Neuromarketing: Marketing research in the new millennium. Neurosci. Res. Notes 2021, 4, 27–35.
  31. Rothschild, M.L.; Hyun, Y.J.; Reeves, B.; Thorson, E.; Goldstein, R. Hemispherically lateralized EEG as a response to television commercials. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 185–198.
  32. Samsuri, N.; Reza, F.; Begum, T.; Yusoff, N.; Idris, B.; Omar, H.; Isa, S.M. Electrophysiological quantification of underlying mechanism of decision making from auto dealers advertisement—A neuromarketing research. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Kedah, Malaysia, 11–13 April 2016; p. 040017.
  33. Hubert, M.; Kenning, P. A current overview of consumer neuroscience. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2008, 7, 272–292.
  34. Plassmann, H.; Venkatraman, V.; Huettel, S.; Yoon, C. Consumer neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and possible solutions. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 52, 427–435.
  35. Babiloni, F. Consumer nueroscience: A new area of study for biomedical engineers. IEEE Pulse 2012, 3, 21–23.
  36. Stanton, S.; Armstrong, W.; Huettel, S. Neuromarketing: Ethical implications of its use and potential misuse. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 144, 799–811.
  37. Ahmed, H.A.; NorZafir, M.S.; Rohaizat, B.; Hassan, A.; Yahia, H.A. Neuromarketing in Malaysia: Challenges, limitations, and solutions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA), Chiangrai, Thailand, 23–25 October 2022; pp. 740–745.
  38. Di Flumeri, G.; Herrero, M.T.; Trettel, A.; Cherubino, P.; Maglione, A.G.; Colosimo, A.; Moneta, E.; Peparaio, M.; Babiloni, F. EEG frontal asymmetry related to pleasantness of olfactory stimuli in young subjects. In Selected Issues in Experimental Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 373–381.
  39. Zander, T.; Kothe, C. Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: Applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general. J. Neural Eng. 2011, 8, 025005.
  40. Lim, W.M. Demystifying neuromarketing. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 205–220.
  41. Harris, J.; Ciorciari, J.; Gountas, J. Consumer neuroscience for marketing researchers. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 239–252.
  42. Fortunato, V.C.R.; Giraldi, J.D.M.E.; Oliveira, J.H.C.D. A review of studies on neuromarketing: Practical results, techniques, contributions and limitations. J. Manag. Res. 2014, 6, 201–221.
  43. Ahmed, H.A.; NorZafir, M.S.; Lina, P.; Alhamzah, F.A.; Javed, A. Current Trends in the Application of EEG in Neuromarketing: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 2022, 69, 393–415.
  44. Ramsoy, T.Z. Introduction to Neuromarketing & Consumer Neuroscience; Neurons Inc.: Rørvig, Denmark, 2015.
  45. Smidts, A.; Hsu, M.; Sanfey, A.G.; Boksem, M.A.; Ebstein, R.B.; Huettel, S.A.; Kable, J.W.; Karmarkar, U.R.; Kitayama, S.; Knutson, B. Advancing consumer neuroscience. Mark. Lett. 2014, 25, 257–267.
  46. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R. Neuromarketing: The popularity of the brain-imaging and physiological tools. Neurosci. Res. Notes 2021, 3, 13–22.
  47. Reimann, M.; Schilke, O.; Weber, B.; Neuhaus, C.; Zaichkowsky, J. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in consumer research: A review and application. Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 608–637.
  48. Sebastian, V. Neuromarketing and evaluation of cognitive and emotional responses of consumers to marketing stimuli. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127, 753–757.
  49. Kenning, P.; Linzmajer, M. Consumer neuroscience: An overview of an emerging discipline with implications for consumer policy. J. Für Verbrauch. Und Lebensm. 2011, 6, 111–125.
  50. Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Casado-Aranda, L.-A.; Bastidas-Manzano, A.-B. Consumer Neuroscience Techniques in Advertising Research: A Bibliometric Citation Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1589.
  51. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Al-Zahrani, S.A.; Khraiwish, A. Consumer Behaviour to Be Considered in Advertising: A Systematic Analysis and Future Agenda. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 472.
  52. Orzan, G.; Zara, I.; Purcarea, V. Neuromarketing techniques in pharmaceutical drugs advertising: A discussion and agenda for future research. J. Med. Life 2012, 5, 428–432.
  53. Cartocci, G.; Modica, E.; Rossi, D.; Cherubino, P.; Maglione, A.G.; Colosimo, A.; Trettel, A.; Mancini, M.; Babiloni, F. Neurophysiological measures of the perception of antismoking public service announcements among young population. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 231–248.
  54. Modica, E.; Rossi, D.; Cartocci, G.; Perrotta, D.; Di Feo, P.; Mancini, M.; Arico, P.; Inguscio, B.M.S.; Babiloni, F. Neurophysiological Profile of Antismoking Campaigns. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2018, 5, 01–11.
  55. Rossi, D.; Modica, E.; Maglione, A.G.; Venuti, I.; Brizi, A.; Babiloni, F.; Cartocci, G. Visual evaluation of health warning cues in anti smoking PSAs images. In Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry (RTSI), Modena, Italy, 11–13 September 2017; pp. 1–5.
  56. Mileti, A.; Guido, G.; Prete, M.I. Nanomarketing: A new frontier for neuromarketing. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 664–674.
  57. Ramos, T.; Marques, J.; Garcia-Marques, L. The memory of what we do not recall: Dissociations and theoretical debates in the study of implicit memory. Psicológica 2017, 38, 365–393.
  58. Singer, E. They know what you want—If neuromarketers can find the key to our consumer desires, will they be able to manipulate what we buy. New Sci. 2004, 183, 36–37.
  59. Pileliene, L.; Grigaliunaite, V. The effect of female celebrity spokesperson in FMCG advertising: Neuromarketing approach. J. Consum. Mark. 2017, 34, 202–213.
  60. Ulman, Y.I.; Cakar, T.; Yildiz, G. Ethical Issues in neuromarketing: I consume, therefore I am. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015, 21, 1271–1284.
  61. Murphy, E.; Illes, J.; Reiner, P. Neuroethics of neuromarketing. J. Consum. Behav. 2008, 7, 293–302.
  62. Martineau, J.T.; Racine, E. Organizational Neuroethics: Reflections on the Contributions of Neuroscience to Management Theories and Business Practices; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
  63. Berliñska, E.; Kaszycka, I. Neuromarketing—Chance or danger for consumers in opinion of MCSU’s students. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference “Technology, Innovation and Industrial Management”, Romania, Timisoara, 25–27 May 2016; pp. 355–359.
  64. Racine, E.; Waldman, S.; Rosenberg, J.; Illes, J. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 725–733.
  65. Isa, S.M.; Mansor, A.A.; Razali, K. Ethics in Neuromarketing and its Implications on Business to Stay Vigilant. KnE Soc. Sci. 2019, 2019, 687–711.
  66. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R.; Effandi, Y.M. Consumer behaviour through neuromarketing approach. J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Gov. 2021, 27, 344–354.
  67. Oullier, O. Clear up this fuzzy thinking on brain scans. Nat. News 2012, 483, 7.
  68. Nemorin, S.; Gandy, O.H., Jr. Exploring neuromarketing and its reliance on remote sensing: Social and ethical concerns. Int. J. Commun. 2017, 11, 4824–4844.
  69. Pop, N.A.; Dabija, D.-C.; Iorga, A.M.J.A.E. Ethical responsibility of neuromarketing companies in harnessing the market research—A global exploratory approach. Amfiteatru Econ. 2014, 16, 26–40.
  70. Arlauskaitė, E.; Sferle, A.; Arlauskaite, E. Ethical issues in neuromarketing. Science 2013, 311, 47–52.
  71. Vozzi, A.; Ronca, V.; Aricò, P.; Borghini, G.; Sciaraffa, N.; Cherubino, P.; Trettel, A.; Babiloni, F.; Di Flumeri, G. The Sample Size Matters: To What Extent the Participant Reduction Affects the Outcomes of a Neuroscientific Research. A Case-Study in Neuromarketing Field. Sensors 2021, 21, 6088.
  72. Combrisson, E.; Jerbi, K. Exceeding chance level by chance: The caveat of theoretical chance levels in brain signal classification and statistical assessment of decoding accuracy. J. Neurosci. Methods 2015, 250, 126–136.
  73. Simmons, J.P.; Nelson, L.D.; Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1359–1366.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback