MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285387229 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.922960

Do emotions influence safe browsing? Toward an electroencephalography marker of affective responses to cybersecurity notifications

2022· article· en· W4285387229 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin Conrad, Jasmine R. Aziz, Jonathon Mark Henneberry, Aaron J. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie UniversityCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsValence (chemistry)ArousalElectroencephalographyDeliberationEmotional valenceInternational Affective Picture SystemComputer scienceComputer securityEmotional reactionAffective computingPsychologyCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionCognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybersecurity notifications play an important role in encouraging users to use computers safely. Emotional reactions to such notifications are known to positively influence users' adherence to these notifications, though it is challenging for researchers to identify and quantify users' emotional reactions. In this study, we explored electroencephalography (EEG) signals that were elicited by the presentation of various emotionally charged image stimuli provided by the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) and compared signals to those elicited by images of cybersecurity notifications and other computer-related stimuli. Participants provided behavioral assessments of valence and arousal elicited by the images which were used to cross-reference the results. We found that EEG amplitudes corresponding to the late positive potential (LPP) were elevated in reaction to images of cybersecurity notifications as well as IAPS images known to elicit strong positive and negative valence, when compared to neutral valence or other computer-related stimuli. These findings suggest that the LPP may account for emotional deliberation about cybersecurity notifications, which could be a useful measure when conducting future studies into the role such emotional reactions play in encouraging safe computer behavior.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207