Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

An interpretable tree model with 115 hand-crafted features beats deep learning for subject-independent pain localization, and a persistent detection–localization gap suggests a physiological ceiling.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

On the AI4Pain 2026 dataset, Extra Trees with 115 hand-crafted features (macro-F1 0.539) beats deep sequence models (0.465), and pain localization (0.552) is far harder than pain detection (0.815).

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, honestly reported benchmark for wearable pain localization; the 'fundamental ceiling' language overstates what is a hedged, single-window result. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19726 v1 pith:NPURDX7G submitted 2026-07-22 cs.CV

An Exploratory Analysis of Pain Localization via Explainable Computational Modeling

Ioannis Kyprakis , Stefanos Gkikas , Eric Nichols , Yu Fang , Manolis Tsiknakis This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords pain localizationpain detectionelectrodermal activitywearable physiologyextremely randomized treesfeature engineeringexplainabilitysubject-independent classification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether deep sequence learning or classical feature engineering is better at locating where pain originates from four wearable autonomic signals, a clinically relevant task for non-verbal patients who cannot say where it hurts. It finds that Extremely Randomized Trees trained on 115 hand-crafted features, spanning time-, frequency-, modality-specific, and cross-modal descriptors, achieves the highest validation macro-F1 (0.539), beating the best deep model (CNN-Transformer, F1 0.465) by 7.4 points. Across all models, detecting the presence of pain is substantially easier than distinguishing arm from hand pain: the best classifier reaches a detection F1 of 0.815 but only a localization F1 of 0.552, a 26-point gap the authors interpret as a physiological ceiling at 10-second resolution. The paper also shows that EDA spectral features dominate the model's decisions and that BVP adds the largest marginal gain, with Resp and SpO2 contributing little at this window length.

Core claim

The central claim is that on the AI4Pain dataset, a classical interpretable pipeline—Extra Trees with 115 hand-crafted features—achieves the best subject-independent three-class pain localization, with validation macro-F1 0.539 and ROC-AUC 0.714, outperforming the best deep sequence model (CNN-Transformer, F1 0.465) by 7.4 points. The paper also establishes a consistent 26-point gap between pain detection (F1 0.815) and localization (F1 0.552) across all models, arguing this reflects the anatomical diffuseness of peripheral autonomic pathways at the resolution of wearable sensors, and thus likely a fundamental ceiling for autonomic-only wearable classification at 10-second segments. EDA spec

What carries the argument

The central object is the 115-dimensional feature vector, constructed per 10-second segment from four modalities (EDA, BVP, Resp, SpO2) and grouped into time-domain (64), frequency-domain (24), modality-specific (21), and cross-modal correlation (6) features. The load-bearing mechanism is the Extra Trees classifier, which randomizes split thresholds, yields Gini feature importances for free, and provides domain-informed inductive bias that generalizes better than end-to-end deep learning in this small-sample regime. The concept of the detection–localization gap, computed by collapsing the three-class predictions into a pain-detection F1 and a pain-only localization F1, is used to quantify th

Load-bearing premise

The ceiling interpretation assumes that a fixed 10-second window captures all pain-relevant information from every modality; if longer or multi-scale windows allow Resp and SpO2 to contribute, the 26-point detection–localization gap could shrink.

What would settle it

Run the same Extra Trees feature pipeline on the same AI4Pain splits using windows of 20, 30, and 60 seconds (or a multi-scale concatenation). If localization macro-F1 rises substantially above 0.552—especially if Resp or SpO2 features start ranking among the top discriminators—the 10-second ceiling is falsified. Alternatively, add a non-autonomic modality such as facial video; if localization F1 jumps beyond the autonomic-only ceiling, the ceiling is specific to autonomic signals.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A wearable using autonomic signals alone can reliably detect the presence of acute pain (detection F1 ≈ 0.815).
  • Localizing pain to arm versus hand from peripheral autonomic signals alone is unreliable at 10-second resolution; no tested model exceeds localization F1 0.552.
  • Because Resp and SpO2 evolve over longer timescales, multi-scale windows might recover some localization information; the ceiling claim is explicitly tied to 10-second windows.
  • EDA plus BVP recovers 95% of full four-modality performance, so a minimal two-sensor wearable could capture most achievable accuracy.
  • The interpretable feature ranking (EDA spectral features first) gives clinicians a transparent, physiologically grounded explanation for predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ceiling is real, pain localization for non-verbal patients will require non-autonomic modalities such as facial video or somatosensory mapping—a direction the paper itself points to.
  • Window length is a free parameter: applying the same feature set on 30–60-second windows or a multi-scale fusion is a cheap falsification test; if Resp or SpO2 features become discriminative, the gap could shrink.
  • The TENS-induced pain paradigm may not reflect clinical pain; real-world pain from different tissues could be harder to localize, an open empirical question.
  • The dominance of EDA spectral features over amplitude features suggests that modeling the timing regularity of sympathetic bursts—not just their magnitude—may be the most promising signal for pain assessment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an exploratory comparison of classical feature-based machine learning and deep sequence models for subject-independent three-class pain localization (No Pain, Pain Arm, Pain Hand) on the AI4Pain 2026 wearable biosignal dataset. A 115-dimensional hand-crafted feature set fed to Extremely Randomized Trees achieves validation macro-F1 0.539, outperforming a CNN-Transformer (0.465) and a Fusion Network (0.413). EDA spectral features dominate Gini importance, and modality ablations indicate EDA+BVP recover 95% of the full four-modality performance. The authors derive a 26-point gap between a collapsed pain-detection F1 (0.815) and a pain-localization F1 (0.552), which they interpret as a possible anatomical ceiling for autonomic-only wearable pain localization at 10-second resolution. The Extra Trees model is also evaluated on the held-out test set (accuracy 49.1%).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful counterpoint to the default use of deep architectures on small physiological datasets, and it concretely demonstrates the value of interpretable feature-based pipelines for pain localization. The study is among the first to benchmark multimodal autonomic signals for subject-independent pain localization, and the explicit subject-disjoint splits, validation/test separation, and the inclusion of a test-set evaluation are strengths. The physiological interpretation of feature importance (EDA spectral structure, BVP entropy) is plausible and clinically motivated. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction about the detection-localization gap being robust to model choice and temporal resolution, which is commendable even if the current evidence does not fully support the strongest version of that prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract & Section IV-B] The abstract and conclusion state that the 26-point detection–localization gap is 'consistent across all models,' but the derived detection and localization F1 values are reported only for Extra Trees. No table or figure gives these metrics for the CNN-Transformer, the Fusion Network, or the ensembles. Please report the derived metrics for all evaluated models, or explicitly restrict the claim to Extra Trees and the ensemble.
  2. [Section V & Section III-A] The 'fundamental ceiling' interpretation overreaches the evidence. The localization task distinguishes only two adjacent sites (Arm vs. Hand) on the same limb, and the authors themselves state that Resp and SpO2 dynamics 'may require windows substantially longer than 10 seconds' and that feature value is 'inseparable from the temporal resolution.' Since only a single 10-second window was tested and no longer-window or multi-scale analysis is reported, the observed gap cannot be attributed to a fixed anatomical ceiling rather than to the chosen window length or the spatial similarity of the two classes. Please soften the conclusion to 'a performance ceiling at 10-second resolution for arm/hand discrimination' and, if possible, add a longer-window or multi-scale experiment to test the claim.
  3. [Section III-C, Table II] The comparison between classical and deep models is not a level playing field. Extra Trees undergoes 200-iteration randomized hyperparameter search, while the deep models are listed as 'Fixed architecture' with no hyperparameter tuning. Additionally, the optimized ensemble selects its combination weights by grid search on the validation set, yet the validation macro-F1 is then reported as the model's performance; this is optimistic and not directly comparable to models whose hyperparameters were selected via training-only cross-validation. Please either perform comparable hyperparameter optimization for the deep models, evaluate the ensemble on the held-out test set, or clearly frame the claim as 'with the specific architectures and default hyperparameters used here.'
  4. [Section IV-A, Table II] With only 12 validation subjects, the reported performance differences (e.g., 7.4 points between Extra Trees and CNN-Transformer) are subject to large sampling variability. No confidence intervals, per-subject bootstrap estimates, or significance tests are provided. Without these, the central claim that classical methods 'consistently outperform' deep methods is not statistically supported. Please add per-subject bootstrap confidence intervals for macro-F1 and, ideally, a paired test across subjects (e.g., Wilcoxon or permutation test) for the main comparisons.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A] The dataset description says each segment is '≈10 s' while the deep models receive 4×1,000 samples at 100 Hz, which is exactly 10 s. Please make the segment length description precise.
  2. [References] Several references contain formatting artifacts: ref. [30] has a duplicated phrase 'cross-attention cross-attention,' and refs. [12], [17], [18] have 'V olume' instead of 'Volume.' Please proofread the reference list.
  3. [Abstract/Conclusion] The abstract says 'fundamental ceiling' while the conclusion says 'likely represents a performance ceiling'; please align the strength of these claims with the evidence, especially after addressing the window-length concern.
  4. [Section IV-B] The derived pain-detection F1 is computed by collapsing the two pain classes from the three-class model's predictions. Please clarify in the text that this is not a separately trained binary detector, as readers may otherwise misinterpret the 0.815 value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the main result is an empirical head-to-head on held-out labels; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—Extra Trees with 115 hand-crafted features reaches macro-F1 0.539 versus CNN-Transformer 0.465—is produced by training on fixed inputs and evaluating on held-out validation and test labels. No parameter is fitted to the reported metric and then renamed as a prediction. The derived 26-point gap between pain detection (F1=0.815) and localization (F1=0.552) is a descriptive transformation of the same 3-class predictions (collapsing PainArm/PainHand for detection, restricting to pain-positive segments for localization); it is not a fitted quantity and is not equivalent by construction to any input. The claim that this gap is 'consistent across all models' is not fully supported by the reported tables, but that is an evidential/overreach issue, not circularity. Numerous references to the authors' own prior work appear in the related-work section, but none is load-bearing for the main result; the AI4Pain dataset is cited to the challenge organizers, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own unverified prior results. Section V explicitly flags the 10-second window limitation for Resp and SpO2, undercutting the 'fundamental ceiling' interpretation but also showing the paper does not conceal the assumption. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs, so no circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on a curated feature set and tuning choices rather than a free-standing theoretical derivation. The strongest parametric burden is the hand-crafted 115-feature representation and its preprocessing choices; the classification hyperparameters are fitted on validation data. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Extra Trees hyperparameters = 100 trees, max depth 10, min samples leaf 1, sqrt feature subsampling, balanced class weights
    Selected via 200-iteration randomized search with 5-fold subject-stratified CV; these drive the claimed 0.539 macro-F1.
  • Deep model hyperparameters = AdamW warmup-cosine-cooldown, label smoothing epsilon=0.05, early stopping patience 30, augmentation sigma=0.02, scaling
    Chosen without hyperparameter search; the comparison would be fairer if deep models were tuned similarly.
  • Ensemble combination weights = Optimized convex combination coefficients from validation grid search
    Selected to maximize validation macro-F1; only Extra Trees was evaluated on the test set.
  • Feature engineering / preprocessing constants = Butterworth cutoffs (BVP 0.5-5 Hz; EDA/Resp 1 Hz; SpO2 0.5 Hz), SpO2 clip [80,100], z-score from train, 10 s window, mod
    Hand-chosen; the ceiling claim depends on the 10 s window and the feature set composition.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption TENS-induced pain under controlled lab conditions is a valid proxy for clinical pain localization
    The paper acknowledges in Section V that generalization to chronic, post-operative, or neuropathic pain remains an open question; clinical utility claims depend on this.
  • domain assumption The 10-second segment length is sufficient to capture pain-localization information in all four modalities
    The ceiling conclusion depends on this; the paper itself states Resp and SpO2 dynamics evolve over longer timescales.
  • domain assumption Arm vs Hand ground-truth labels are anatomically distinct and consistent across subjects
    If TENS placement or subjective perception varied, localization F1 would be lower for reasons unrelated to autonomic physiology.
  • domain assumption Subject-disjoint splits with 12 test subjects give stable performance estimates
    The paper notes validation has only 12 subjects and a 5.8-point validation-to-test drop; small-sample variability is nontrivial.
  • standard math Gini impurity importances are unbiased descriptors of feature relevance
    Standard ML assumption, but Gini importances are known to be biased; used as the explainability backbone.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Exploratory Analysis of Pain Localization via Explainable Computational Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NPURDX7G

@misc{pith2026260719726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Exploratory Analysis of Pain Localization via Explainable Computational Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NPURDX7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19726}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Automatic pain localization, which involves identifying the anatomical origin of pain from peripheral physiological signals without patient self-report, is a clinically critical but largely unaddressed problem, particularly for non-verbal patients. This paper presents a systematic comparison of classical feature engineering and deep sequence learning for subject-independent three-class pain localization using the AI4Pain 2026 Challenge dataset, which comprises four synchronously recorded wearable modalities: electrodermal activity, blood volume pulse, respiration, and peripheral oxygen saturation recorded from 65 participants under controlled TENS-induced pain. A 115-dimensional hand-crafted feature set spanning time-domain, frequency-domain, modality-specific, and cross-modal descriptors is benchmarked against end-to-end deep architectures. Extremely Randomized Trees achieves the highest macro-F1 of 0.539, outperforming the best deep model by 7.4 percentage points, with EDA spectral features emerging as the dominant discriminators. A consistent 26-point gap between pain detection (F1\,=\,0.815) and localization (F1\,=\,0.552) across all models points to a fundamental ceiling imposed by the anatomical diffuseness of peripheral autonomic pathways at 10-second resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19726 by Eric Nichols, Ioannis Kyprakis, Manolis Tsiknakis, Stefanos Gkikas, Yu Fang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top-10 features ranked by Gini importance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Painful truth: The need to re-center chronic pain on the functional role of pain,

    V . Santiago, “Painful truth: The need to re-center chronic pain on the functional role of pain,”Journal of Pain Research, vol. 15, pp. 497–512, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Marchand,The pain phenomenon

    S. Marchand,The pain phenomenon. Springer Nature, 2024, vol. 13

    2024

  3. [3]

    Pain: The silent public health epidemic,

    J. G. Katzman and R. M. Gallagher, “Pain: The silent public health epidemic,”Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, vol. 15, p. 21501319241253547, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Chronic Pain: An Update on Burden, Best Practices, and New Advances,

    S. P. Cohen, L. Vase, and W. M. Hooten, “Chronic Pain: An Update on Burden, Best Practices, and New Advances,”The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 10289, pp. 2082–2097, 2021

    2082

  5. [5]

    Prescription opioid abuse in chronic pain: an updated review of opioid abuse predictors and strategies to curb opioid abuse: part 1,

    A. D. Kaye, M. R. Jones, A. M. Kaye, J. G. Ripoll, V . Galan, B. D. Beakley, F. Calixto, J. L. Bolden, R. D. Urman, and L. Manchikanti, “Prescription opioid abuse in chronic pain: an updated review of opioid abuse predictors and strategies to curb opioid abuse: part 1,”Pain physician, vol. 20, no. 2, p. S93, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    The first 24 h: opioid administration in people with spinal cord injury and neurologic recovery,

    A. Stampas, C. Pedroza, J. N. Bush, A. R. Ferguson, J. L. K. Kramer, and M. Hook, “The first 24 h: opioid administration in people with spinal cord injury and neurologic recovery,”Spinal Cord, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1080–1089, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Explainable Graph Attention Network for Stress Recognition (StressGAT) via Differential Action Units,

    T. Kassiotis, S. Gkikas, N. Smyrnis, and G. Giannakakis, “Explainable Graph Attention Network for Stress Recognition (StressGAT) via Differential Action Units,” in2026 14th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). IEEE, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Opioid complications and side effects,

    R. Benyamin, A. M. Trescot, S. Datta, R. M. Buenaventura, R. Adlaka, N. Sehgal, S. E. Glaser, and R. Vallejo, “Opioid complications and side effects,”Pain physician, vol. 11, no. 2S, p. S105, 2008

    2008

  9. [9]

    Electrodermal activity in pain assessment and its clinical applications,

    Y . Kong and K. H. Chon, “Electrodermal activity in pain assessment and its clinical applications,”Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 031316, 08 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Pain assessment in the patient unable to self-report: Clinical practice recommendations in support of the ASPMN 2019 position statement,

    K. Herr, P. J. Coyne, E. Ely, C. G ´elinas, and R. C. Manworren, “Pain assessment in the patient unable to self-report: Clinical practice recommendations in support of the ASPMN 2019 position statement,” Pain Management Nursing, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 404–417, 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer 2022: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis,

    R. A. H. Snijders, L. Brom, M. Theunissen, and M. H. J. van den Beuken-van Everdingen, “Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer 2022: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis,”Cancers, vol. 15, no. 3, 2023

    2022

  12. [12]

    Cognition and pain: A review,

    T. Khera and V . Rangasamy, “Cognition and pain: A review,”Frontiers in Psychology, vol. V olume 12 - 2021, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Pain in focus: How persistent pain disrupts the attentional bias towards pain- related information,

    J. Li, X. Lyu, X. Li, X. Yang, L. Weng, Y . Wang, and W. Peng, “Pain in focus: How persistent pain disrupts the attentional bias towards pain- related information,”NeuroImage, vol. 321, p. 121539, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    The effect of induced and chronic pain on attention,

    D. J. Moore, S. M. Meints, A. Lazaridou, D. Johnson, O. Franceschelli, M. Cornelius, K. Schreiber, and R. R. Edwards, “The effect of induced and chronic pain on attention,”The Journal of Pain, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1353–1361, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Development and testing of a computerized pain body map in patients with advanced cancer,

    E. A. Andreassen Jaatun, M. J. Hjermstad, O. E. Gundersen, L. Oldervoll, S. Kaasa, and D. F. Haugen, “Development and testing of a computerized pain body map in patients with advanced cancer,”Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2014

    2014

  16. [16]

    Discovery of unexpected pain in intubated and sedated patients,

    B. L. Clukey, R. A. Weyant, M. Roberts, and A. Henderson, “Discovery of unexpected pain in intubated and sedated patients,”American Journal of Critical Care, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 216–220, 05 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    Pain among non-verbal critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: Prevalence, correlates and predictors,

    S. M. Ayasrah, “Pain among non-verbal critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: Prevalence, correlates and predictors,”Journal of Critical Care, vol. 49, pp. 14–20, 2019

    2019

  18. [18]

    “what about automated pain recognition for routine clinical use?

    S. Walter, S. Gruss, S. Frisch, J. Liter, L. Jerg-Bretzke, B. Zujalovic, and E. Barth, ““what about automated pain recognition for routine clinical use?” a survey of physicians and nursing staff on expectations, requirements, and acceptance,”Frontiers in Medicine, vol. V olume 7 - 2020, 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    A pain assessment framework based on multimodal data and deep machine learning methods,

    S. Gkikas, “A pain assessment framework based on multimodal data and deep machine learning methods,” 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05396. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    ReFace: Reorganizing facial spatiotemporal representations for improved pain assessment,

    S. Gkikas, Y . Fang, C. A. Cruz, M. U. Khan, and R. F. Rojas, “ReFace: Reorganizing facial spatiotemporal representations for improved pain assessment,” 2026

    2026

  21. [21]

    A full transformer-based framework for automatic pain estimation using videos,

    S. Gkikas and M. Tsiknakis, “A full transformer-based framework for automatic pain estimation using videos,” in2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  22. [22]

    Multi-task neural networks for pain intensity estimation using electrocardiogram and demographic factors,

    S. Gkikas, C. Chatzaki, and M. Tsiknakis, “Multi-task neural networks for pain intensity estimation using electrocardiogram and demographic factors,” inInformation and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 324–337

    2023

  23. [23]

    Exploring deep physiological models for nociceptive pain recognition,

    P. Thiam, P. Bellmann, H. A. Kestler, and F. Schwenker, “Exploring deep physiological models for nociceptive pain recognition,”Sensors, vol. 19, p. 4503, 10 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Automatic pain recognition from video and biomedical signals,

    P. Werner, A. Al-Hamadi, R. Niese, S. Walter, S. Gruss, and H. C. Traue, “Automatic pain recognition from video and biomedical signals,” in2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp. 4582–4587

    2014

  25. [25]

    Ensemble neural networks for multimodal acute pain intensity evaluation using video and physiological signals,

    M. S. Patil and H. D. Patil, “Ensemble neural networks for multimodal acute pain intensity evaluation using video and physiological signals,” Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications (JoCAAA), vol. 33, no. 05, p. 779–791, Sep. 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Multimodal pain assessment based on physiological biosignals: The impact of demographic factors on perception and sensitivity,

    E. Pavlidou and M. Tsiknakis, “Multimodal pain assessment based on physiological biosignals: The impact of demographic factors on perception and sensitivity,” inProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health - ICT4AWE, INSTICC. SciTePress, 2025, pp. 320– 329

    2025

  27. [27]

    Multi-representation diagrams for pain recognition: Integrating various electrodermal activity signals into a single image,

    S. Gkikas, I. Kyprakis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Multi-representation diagrams for pain recognition: Integrating various electrodermal activity signals into a single image,” inCompanion Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ser. ICMI Companion ’25. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 162–171

    2025

  28. [28]

    Pain recognition with physiological signals using multi-level context information,

    K. N. Phan, N. K. Iyortsuun, S. Pant, H.-J. Yang, and S.-H. Kim, “Pain recognition with physiological signals using multi-level context information,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 20 114–20 127, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Transformer encoder with multiscale deep learning for pain classification using physiological signals,

    Z. Lu, B. Ozek, and S. Kamarthi, “Transformer encoder with multiscale deep learning for pain classification using physiological signals,”Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 14, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Automatic pain assessment based on physiological signals: Application of multi-scale networks and cross-attention cross-attention,

    J. Li, J. Luo, Y . Wang, Y . Jiang, X. Chen, and Y . Quan, “Automatic pain assessment based on physiological signals: Application of multi-scale networks and cross-attention cross-attention,” inProceedings of the 2024 13th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Science, ser. ICBBS ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machi...

    2024

  31. [31]

    A two-stage architecture for identifying and locating the source of pain using novel multi-domain binary patterns of eda,

    S. Aziz, C. Joseph, N. Hirachan, L. Murtagh, G. Chetty, R. Goecke, and R. Fernandez-Rojas, “A two-stage architecture for identifying and locating the source of pain using novel multi-domain binary patterns of eda,”Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 104, p. 107454, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Efficient pain recognition via respiration signals: A single cross-attention transformer multi-window fusion pipeline,

    S. Gkikas, I. Kyprakis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Efficient pain recognition via respiration signals: A single cross-attention transformer multi-window fusion pipeline,” inCompanion Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ser. ICMI Companion ’25. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 70–79

    2025

  33. [33]

    Region of interest detection and evaluation in functional near infrared spectroscopy,

    R. F. Rojas, X. Huang, and K.-L. Ou, “Region of interest detection and evaluation in functional near infrared spectroscopy,”Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 317–326, 2016

    2016

  34. [34]

    Cortical network response to acupuncture and the effect of the hegu point: An fnirs study,

    R. Fernandez Rojas, M. Liao, J. Romero, X. Huang, and K.-L. Ou, “Cortical network response to acupuncture and the effect of the hegu point: An fnirs study,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 2, 2019

    2019

  35. [35]

    Pain assessment based on fnirs using bi-lstm rnns,

    R. F. Rojas, J. Romero, J. Lopez-Aparicio, and K.-L. Ou, “Pain assessment based on fnirs using bi-lstm rnns,” in2021 10th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER), 2021, pp. 399– 402

    2021

  36. [36]

    Multilevel pain assessment with functional near-infrared spectroscopy: Evaluating δhbo2 and δhhb measures for comprehensive analysis,

    M. U. Khan, M. Sousani, N. Hirachan, C. Joseph, M. Ghahramani, G. Chetty, R. Goecke, and R. Fernandez-Rojas, “Multilevel pain assessment with functional near-infrared spectroscopy: Evaluating δhbo2 and δhhb measures for comprehensive analysis,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Empirical comparison of deep learning models for fnirs pain decoding,

    R. Fernandez Rojas, C. Joseph, G. Bargshady, and K.-L. Ou, “Empirical comparison of deep learning models for fnirs pain decoding,”Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    A lightweight transformer for pain recognition from brain activity,

    S. Gkikas, C. A. Cruz, Y . Fang, L. Cao, M. U. Khan, T. Kassiotis, G. Giannakakis, R. F. Rojas, and R. Gomez, “A lightweight transformer for pain recognition from brain activity,” 2026

    2026

  39. [39]

    Pain assessment using multi-kernel-fcn-lstm and haemoglobin difference in fnirs,

    G. Bargshady, S. Aziz, S. Gkikas, M. Tsiknakis, R. Goecke, and R. Fernandez Rojas, “Pain assessment using multi-kernel-fcn-lstm and haemoglobin difference in fnirs,”ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Automatic assessment of pain based on deep learning methods: A systematic review,

    S. Gkikas and M. Tsiknakis, “Automatic assessment of pain based on deep learning methods: A systematic review,”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 231, p. 107365, 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    A systematic review of multimodal signal fusion for acute pain assessment systems,

    M. U. Khan, G. Chetty, R. Goecke, and R. Fernandez-Rojas, “A systematic review of multimodal signal fusion for acute pain assessment systems,”ACM Comput. Surv., 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    A crossmod-transformer deep learning framework for multi-modal pain detection through eda and ecg fusion,

    J. Farmani, G. Bargshady, S. Gkikas, M. Tsiknakis, and R. Fernandez Rojas, “A crossmod-transformer deep learning framework for multi-modal pain detection through eda and ecg fusion,”Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 29467, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14238-y

    doi:10.1038/s41598-025-14238-y 2025

  43. [43]

    A Unified Tokenization Framework for Pain Recognition using Heterogeneous 3D Modalities,

    S. Gkikas, C. A. Cruz, V . Becchetti, M. U. Khan, A. Giuseppi, and R. F. Rojas, “A Unified Tokenization Framework for Pain Recognition using Heterogeneous 3D Modalities,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 2026

    2026

  44. [44]

    Tiny-biomoe: a lightweight embedding model for biosignal analysis,

    S. Gkikas, I. Kyprakis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Tiny-biomoe: a lightweight embedding model for biosignal analysis,” inCompanion Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ser. ICMI Companion ’25. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 117–126

    2025

  45. [45]

    Tree-based models for pain detection from biomedical signals,

    H. Shi, B. Chikhaoui, and S. Wang, “Tree-based models for pain detection from biomedical signals,” inParticipative Urban Health and Healthy Aging in the Age of AI. Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 183–195

    2022

  46. [46]

    Discrete wavelet transform based pain assessment using multiple physiological signals,

    S. Jerritta, M. Murugappan, D. Manasa, and R. Gayathri, “Discrete wavelet transform based pain assessment using multiple physiological signals,” in2022 First International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Information and Communication Technologies (ICEEICT), 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  47. [47]

    A multi-modal multi-expert framework for pain assessment in postoperative children,

    Z. Liang, H. Luo, X. Chen, Z. Zhong, C. Fan, X. Song, B. Li, and J. Lv, “A multi-modal multi-expert framework for pain assessment in postoperative children,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2828–2841, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Multimodal signal analysis for pain recognition in physiotherapy using wavelet scattering transform,

    A. Badura, A. Masłowska, A. My ´sliwiec, and E. Pietka, “Multimodal signal analysis for pain recognition in physiotherapy using wavelet scattering transform,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 4, 2021

    2021

  49. [49]

    Multi-modal fusion based automatic pain assessment,

    R. Zhi and J. Yu, “Multi-modal fusion based automatic pain assessment,” in2019 IEEE 8th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), 2019, pp. 1378–1382

    2019

  50. [50]

    Mul- timodal automatic assessment of acute pain through facial videos and heart rate signals utilizing transformer-based architectures,

    S. Gkikas, N. S. Tachos, S. Andreadis, V . C. Pezoulas, D. Zaridis, G. Gkois, A. Matonaki, T. G. Stavropoulos, and D. I. Fotiadis, “Mul- timodal automatic assessment of acute pain through facial videos and heart rate signals utilizing transformer-based architectures,”Frontiers in Pain Research, vol. 5, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Spatio-temporal pain estimation network with measuring pseudo heart rate gain,

    D. Huang, X. Feng, H. Zhang, Z. Yu, J. Peng, G. Zhao, and Z. Xia, “Spatio-temporal pain estimation network with measuring pseudo heart rate gain,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 3300–3313, 2022

    2022

  52. [52]

    “where does it hurt?

    S. Aziz, M. U. Khan, N. Hirachan, G. Chetty, R. Goecke, and R. Fernandez-Rojas, ““where does it hurt?”: Exploring eda signals to detect and localise acute pain,” in2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  53. [53]

    The reliability and concurrent validity of PainMAP software for automated quantification of pain drawings on body charts of patients with low back pain,

    L. A. Corr ˆea, J. V . Bittencourt, A. d. S. Ferreira, F. J. J. D. dos Reis, R. S. de Almeida, and L. A. C. Nogueira, “The reliability and concurrent validity of PainMAP software for automated quantification of pain drawings on body charts of patients with low back pain,”Pain Practice, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 462–470, 2020

    2020

  54. [54]

    Quantification of Patient-Reported Pain Locations: Development of an Automated Measurement Method,

    K. Abudawood, S. L. Yoon, R. Garg, Y . Yao, R. E. Molokie, and D. J. Wilkie, “Quantification of Patient-Reported Pain Locations: Development of an Automated Measurement Method,”CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, vol. 41, no. 5, 2023

    2023

  55. [55]

    The ai4pain grand challenge 2026: A multimodal physiological dataset and benchmark for pain detection and localisation

    R. Fernandez-Rojas, C. Joseph, N. Hirachan, B. Seymour, and R. Goecke, “The ai4pain grand challenge 2026: A multimodal physiological dataset and benchmark for pain detection and localisation.” in2026 14th Inter- national Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW). IEEE, 2026

    2026

  56. [56]

    The ai4pain grand challenge 2025: Advancing pain assessment with multimodal physiological signals,

    ——, “The ai4pain grand challenge 2025: Advancing pain assessment with multimodal physiological signals,” inCompanion Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 2025, pp. 147–152

    2025

  57. [57]

    The ai4pain grand challenge 2024: Advancing pain assessment with multimodal fnirs and facial video analysis,

    ——, “The ai4pain grand challenge 2024: Advancing pain assessment with multimodal fnirs and facial video analysis,” in2024 12th Interna- tional Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW). IEEE, 2024, pp. 55–60

    2024

  58. [58]

    Multimodal physiological sensing for the assessment of acute pain,

    R. Fernandez Rojas, N. Hirachan, N. Brown, G. Waddington, L. Murtagh, B. Seymour, and R. Goecke, “Multimodal physiological sensing for the assessment of acute pain,”Frontiers in Pain Research, vol. 4, p. 1150264, 2023

    2023

  59. [59]

    Extremely randomized trees,

    P. Geurts, D. Ernst, and L. Wehenkel, “Extremely randomized trees,” Machine Learning, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 3–42, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1

    doi:10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 2006

  60. [60]

    Electrodermal activity: The potential of psychophysiology in pain assessment,

    F. Papanikolaou, R. B. Nedergaard, A. M. Drewes, and K. S. Benthien, “Electrodermal activity: The potential of psychophysiology in pain assessment,”Psychophysiology, vol. 63, no. 3, p. e70276, 2026

    2026

  61. [61]

    Heart rate variability and pain: A systematic review,

    G. Forte, G. Troisi, M. Pazzaglia, V . De Pascalis, and M. Casagrande, “Heart rate variability and pain: A systematic review,”Brain Sciences, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 153, 2022

    2022

  62. [62]

    Pain and respiration: A systematic review,

    H. Jafari, I. Courtois, O. Van den Bergh, J. W. S. Vlaeyen, and I. Van Diest, “Pain and respiration: A systematic review,”Pain, vol. 158, no. 6, pp. 995–1006, 2017

    2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.