Analyses of the Effects of Humanities Education on Brain Waves of the Frontal, Parietal, and Temporal Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted targeting college students majoring in science and engineering, who were divided into an experimental group who took a humanities course and a control group who did not. After the experimental group took a humanities course, the brain wave activity of the frontal, parietal, temporal, and central regions of the two groups was measured using electroencephalography systems, and the electroencephalogram (EEG) waveforms of the anterior cerebrum were comparatively analyzed. A total of 67 subjects participated in the experiment, with 36 in the experimental group and 31 in the control group. According to the International 10-20 system, an international standard for EEG measurement, 7 electrodes (Cz, F3, F4, P3, P4, T3, T4) were attached to the cerebral scalp, and 2 reference electrodes were attached to both earlobes. These were attached after adjusting the resistance to the minimum value. The experimental group took a humanities course called "Understanding Beauty" for two hours twice a week over a period of 15 weeks. This course aimed to develop students’ imaginations to overcome a fact-centered world. After each lecture, the experimental group was asked to sit in a comfortable position with their eyes closed in a dark and quiet environment, and EEG measurements were started when their brain waveforms became stable. EEG measurements were also taken for the control group who did not take the course, at the same time and in the same manner. The measurements were conducted for about 10 minutes. The pattern in EEG changes between the two groups over time was analyzed by dividing them into alpha waves (8-13 Hz), theta waves (4-8 Hz), and beta waves (13-3 Hz). Based on the analysis results, for relative alpha waves, the difference between the mean vectors of all 7 variables was significant depending on the treatment (lecture attendance) (F(7, 59)=11.790, p<0.001). The variation over time between the experimental and control groups was significant (F(21,45)=3.575, p<0.001), indicating that there was an interaction effect between repeated measures and the groups. For relative beta waves, the difference between the mean vectors of all 7 variables was significant depending on the treatment (F(7, 59)=12.628, p<0.001). The variation over time between the two groups was significant (F(21,45)=3.388, p<0.001), suggesting that there was an interaction effect between repeated measures and the groups. For relative theta waves, the difference between the mean vectors of all 7 variables was significant depending on the treatment (F(7, 59)=5.301, p<0.001). The variation over time between the two groups was significant (F(21,45)=3.388, p<0.001), which means that there was an interaction effect between repeated measures and the groups.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".