Neuro‑Derived Behavior‑Elastic Demand Curves Transform Optimal Pricing and λ Trade‑off¶

1. Introduction¶

Pricing theory has long rested on the premise that a firm can infer the optimal price by estimating the responsiveness of quantity demanded to a marginal change in price, formalized as the price‑elasticity of demand (PED). The elasticity coefficient captures the percentage change in quantity for a one‑percent change in price, with its sign and magnitude dictating whether a price reduction or increase will raise total revenue and, when marginal cost is incorporated, the profit‑maximising price [51d4e8f8] [58c79591]. Classical revenue‑management models therefore treat elasticity as a scalar parameter that can be recovered from observed price‑quantity pairs using econometric techniques such as log‑linear regressions, hedonic regressions, or random‑coefficients discrete‑choice models [51d4e8f8] [a2c44903-30ed-4fac-a5b1-99a2e78a9cb8]. This framework underpins the marginal‑revenue condition MR = MC, which has served as the analytical cornerstone for monopoly, oligopoly, and competitive pricing strategies.

In parallel, advances in neuromarketing have made it possible to observe the neural and physiological correlates of consumer valuation in real time. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, galvanic skin response, facial electromyography, and eye‑tracking each provide continuous, quantifiable descriptors of affective, attentional, and reward‑related processes that arise when participants encounter price stimuli [60c02e03] [299ea0db] [5edb402b]. When these signals are mapped onto a latent valuation index, the resulting demand curve is constructed from a “behavior‑elastic” relationship: the elasticity is measured as the change in the neural value signal with respect to price, rather than the change in observed quantity [57abbca1] [d4f9aea0]. This shift redefines the elasticity concept as a multidimensional surface that integrates subconscious valuation, arousal, and attentional dynamics, offering a potentially richer representation of consumer willingness‑to‑pay than traditional price‑quantity observations alone.

Empirical evidence suggests that substituting behavior‑elastic curves for traditional price‑elastic estimates can generate substantial profit‑margin improvements, often in the double‑digit range. For example, Baldo et al. reported a 36.4 % profit uplift when pricing decisions were driven by EEG‑based valuation, compared with a 12.1 % uplift using conventional survey‑based elasticity estimates [5d137c7d]. Across a broader set of studies, profit or margin gains of 10–30 % have been documented, and the λ trade‑off metric—defined as the ratio of incremental profit to incremental revenue—captures the underlying profit‑revenue dynamics that drive these returns [7a0a8c72]. Accordingly, the present review anticipates that integrating neuro‑derived behavior‑elastic demand will yield a comparable ROI, offering firms a quantifiable pathway to enhance margins while respecting the λ‑driven optimal‑pricing condition.

The convergence of these two strands raises a fundamental research question: how does optimal pricing adjust when the conventional price‑elastic demand curve is supplanted by a behavior‑elastic curve derived from neuromarketing data? Answering this question requires a systematic comparison of the classic marginal‑revenue formulation with a revised optimal‑pricing condition that incorporates neuro‑derived elasticity, as well as an assessment of the associated profit‑revenue trade‑off (the λ metric). The present report therefore proceeds to examine the theoretical foundations of both elasticity concepts, describe the methodological pathways for extracting behavior‑elastic parameters, and evaluate the empirical performance of behavior‑elastic pricing across a range of market contexts.

The following section reviews the background and theoretical foundations of traditional price elasticity and the emerging behavior‑elastic framework, establishing the basis for the methodological and empirical analyses that follow.

2. Background and Theoretical Foundations¶

This section establishes the conceptual foundations for examining how optimal pricing is altered when traditional price‑elastic demand curves are replaced by behavior‑elastic curves derived from neuro‑marketing data. It first reviews the classical theory of price elasticity, the marginal‑revenue framework, and the suite of econometric techniques—ranging from midpoint calculations to the Berry–Levinsohn–Pakes random‑coefficients logit model—used to estimate elasticity for optimal pricing decisions. The discussion then turns to the emergence of behavior elasticity, describing how neuro‑physiological signals such as fMRI BOLD responses, EEG/ERP components, autonomic measures, and eye‑tracking metrics are quantified and mapped onto valuation indices that generate demand curves grounded in neural data. By juxtaposing these two modeling paradigms, the section prepares the reader for the subsequent comparative analysis of traditional and behavior‑elastic pricing frameworks.

2.1. Traditional Price Elasticity and Optimal Pricing¶

Traditional price‑elastic demand provides the foundational framework for most revenue‑management models. Price elasticity of demand (PED) measures the percentage change in quantity demanded that results from a one‑percent change in price, holding all other factors constant [51d4e8f8] [58c79591]. Formally,

where a negative sign reflects the inverse relationship between price and quantity. Elasticity is classified by its absolute magnitude: |Eₚ| > 1 denotes elastic demand, |Eₚ| < 1 denotes inelastic demand, and |Eₚ| = 1 indicates unitary elasticity [51d4e8f8]. These regimes determine the direction of revenue change: when demand is elastic a price reduction raises total revenue, whereas with inelastic demand a price increase raises revenue [51d4e8f8]. The marginal‑revenue (MR) expression derived from the elasticity definition is

so MR is positive only for elastic demand, zero at unitary elasticity, and negative for inelastic demand [51d4e8f8]. Optimal pricing in the classic revenue‑optimization literature therefore hinges on an accurate estimate of Eₚ, because the profit‑maximizing rule sets MR equal to marginal cost (MC) [d548bb8d-3141-402f-a721-9cae0c12c0b2].

Standard elasticity‑estimation techniques
A variety of empirical methods are used to recover price‑elastic demand parameters from observed data. Table 1 summarizes the most widely applied approaches and their salient features.

Table 1 summarizes the principal elasticity‑estimation methods, indicating the data inputs, typical contexts, and key advantages or drawbacks. Each entry is grounded in the cited literature.

The Berry–Levinsohn–Pakes (BLP) random‑coefficients logit model has become the seminal tool for estimating both own‑price and cross‑price elasticities in differentiated‑product markets. BLP combines a discrete‑choice framework with a generalized‑method‑of‑moments (GMM) estimator that explicitly addresses price endogeneity through instrumental variables [c1c22c7e] [2c7294d0] [1278b81b] [d0ab56f0]. Extensions that incorporate optimal instruments or interactive fixed effects further enhance estimator efficiency and reduce bias [50235f25] [d6f43fdc]. The resulting elasticity estimates feed directly into revenue‑optimization models that rely on the MR = MC condition, allowing analysts to quantify the marginal impact of price changes on both quantity and profit [d548bb8d-3141-402f-a721-9cae0c12c0b2].

Beyond BLP, hedonic regression leverages detailed product attributes to recover price sensitivities, especially useful when quality variations drive demand [3f92ba65]. Log‑linear regressions and mid‑point calculations remain popular for industries with rich time‑series sales data, providing rapid elasticity benchmarks that inform tactical pricing adjustments [a2c44903-30ed-4fac-a5b1-99a2e78a9cb8] [076aff5d]. Regardless of the method, the estimated elasticity parameter enters the marginal‑revenue expression and determines whether a price change should be directed toward revenue maximization (unitary elasticity) or profit maximization (adjusted for marginal cost) [51d4e8f8] [7117f286].

In practice, the elasticity estimate influences several strategic levers:

• Pricing level – For elastic products, optimal policy recommends price reductions to expand volume; for inelastic products, higher prices increase margin without substantial demand loss [7117f286].
• Price discrimination – Accurate cross‑price elasticities enable segmentation and differentiated pricing across market segments, preserving channel efficiency [b0306a2e].
• Dynamic pricing – Real‑time re‑estimation of elasticities using machine‑learning pipelines supports continuous price adjustment in fast‑moving consumer environments [d9e52129].

Thus, the traditional price‑elastic framework—defined by a scalar elasticity coefficient, estimated through a suite of econometric techniques, and embedded in marginal‑revenue analysis—constitutes the methodological backbone of classical revenue‑optimization theory. Having outlined these foundations, the next subsection examines how neuromarketing data give rise to behavior‑elastic demand and the consequent implications for optimal pricing.

2.2. Neuromarketing and the Emergence of Behavior‑Elastic Demand¶

Behavior elasticity refers to the responsiveness of consumer demand when the demand curve is constructed from neuro‑physiological valuations rather than from observed price‑quantity pairs. In this framework the “price‑elastic” variable is replaced by a neural value signal (V₃) that quantifies the brain’s valuation of a product, and elasticity is measured as the change in that neural value with respect to a change in price [25]. Neuromarketing therefore provides the methodological bridge: physiological and neural signals are recorded while participants are exposed to price‑related stimuli, interpreted as proxies for latent valuation, and subsequently used to generate demand curves that reflect behavior‑elastic rather than price‑elastic relationships [62].

The neuromarketing toolkit encompasses several classes of signals that have been linked empirically to consumer valuation. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) captures blood‑oxygen‑level‑dependent (BOLD) responses in valuation‑related regions such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and ventral striatum (VS) [29][45]; electroencephalography (EEG) and event‑related potentials (ERPs) provide temporally precise indices of sensory and affective processing (e.g., N1, P2, P3a, MMN) [15][44][60]; autonomic measures (heart‑rate variability, skin‑conductance response) and facial electromyography (EMG) quantify arousal and affective valence [30][49]; and eye‑tracking delivers metrics of visual attention and physiological arousal such as fixation duration, total dwell time, and pupil dilation [28][57]. Each of these modalities yields a set of quantifiable descriptors that can be treated as continuous dependent variables in elasticity‑type models.

BOLD signal amplitude varies systematically with subjective value (SV) in a linear fashion for many valuation‑related regions. In the VMPFC and anterior VS, larger BOLD responses correspond to higher perceived reward, enabling the computation of a ΔBOLD/ΔSV slope that can be mapped onto price changes [29]. Because the same linear relationship holds during both decision and outcome phases, the BOLD response can serve as a stable neural proxy for the valuation function required to construct a behavior‑elastic demand curve [25].

EEG‑based indices also support elasticity estimation. Auditory ERP components N1 and P2 exhibit a linear amplitude increase with stimulus intensity, which can be interpreted as a neural analogue of “price intensity” in a pricing experiment [60]. More complex CAEP components such as P3a and MMN show strong correlations with autonomic markers (heart‑rate, HRV) across different auditory stimulus complexities, indicating that combined neural‑autonomic signatures capture the perceived cost of a stimulus and can be incorporated into demand‑curve construction [15]. Additionally, modality‑specific EEG power patterns (alpha and beta band) differentiate visual, auditory, and multimodal presentations, providing a continuous metric of sensory‑driven valuation that can be plotted against price levels [44].

Peripheral physiological signals offer complementary information. Galvanic skin response (GSR) can be summarized by mean amplitude, peak count, integrated SCR, and other statistical descriptors, all of which scale with emotional arousal elicited by price cues [30][49]. Facial EMG recordings from the corrugator and zygomaticus muscles yield skewness and kurtosis measures that discriminate among affective states tied to price perception, thereby furnishing additional quantitative inputs for behavior‑elastic modeling [49].

Eye‑tracking provides a direct window onto attentional allocation and arousal. Total dwell time (TDT) and total fixation count (TFC) within price‑related areas of interest increase when a stimulus captures consumer interest, while average pupil diameter (APD) rises with physiological arousal. These metrics have been shown to shift systematically with price exposure, allowing researchers to compute “attention‑elasticity” and “arousal‑elasticity” coefficients analogous to traditional price elasticity [28][57].

The transformation from raw neuro‑physiological data to a behavior‑elastic demand curve follows a four‑step pathway: (1) capture the relevant signals while participants encounter systematically varied price levels; (2) quantify each signal using standardized descriptors (e.g., ΔBOLD, ERP amplitude change, GSR peak frequency, fixation duration); (3) map the quantified neural response to a latent valuation index V (often by normalizing against a neutral baseline); and (4) plot V against the corresponding price to obtain a demand curve whose slope represents behavior elasticity [25][62]. Linear scaling relationships (e.g., ΔBOLD‑ΔPrice, ΔERP‑ΔPrice) are preferred because they permit direct estimation of a elasticity coefficient that mirrors the classic ΔQ/ΔP ratio, while non‑linear or U‑shaped responses are either modeled separately or excluded to avoid confounding arousal effects [29].

Neuro‑physiological metrics applicable to behavior‑elastic demand modeling

These descriptors can be entered into regression or structural‑equation models that estimate the slope of V versus price, yielding a behavior‑elasticity coefficient that is directly comparable to traditional price‑elasticity estimates but grounded in neuro‑physiological evidence.

Having established the definition of behavior elasticity and outlined the neuro‑physiological signals that can be operationalized into demand curves, the next section will compare traditional price‑elastic models with the emerging behavior‑elastic framework.

3. Methodological Approaches¶

The Methodological Approaches section delineates the experimental and analytical procedures required to obtain neuro‑physiological data, translate those signals into behavior‑elastic demand curves, and ensure that all activities comply with rigorous ethical and privacy standards. It first surveys neuromarketing data‑collection modalities—including fMRI, EEG/ERP, galvanic skin response, eye‑tracking, and multimodal integrations—highlighting their respective signals, sample‑size guidance, costs, and ethical safeguards. It then outlines the statistical and machine‑learning workflow for constructing behavior‑elastic curves, covering weighted estimators, micro‑randomized‑trial designs, deconvolution‑based regression, curve fitting, and the λ trade‑off metric. Finally, it examines the legal and normative considerations surrounding informed consent, data security, and broader ethical debates. The discussion begins with the detailed data‑collection techniques.

3.1. Data Collection Techniques in Neuromarketing¶

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides whole‑brain, three‑dimensional maps of hemodynamic activity that are interpreted as neural correlates of consumer valuation. Monetary‑incentive tasks reliably elicit significant BOLD activation in the striatum, insula, and mesial prefrontal cortex—regions implicated in reward processing and decision‑making—and the signal can be quantified as percent‑signal change or β‑weight per price‑related stimulus [45]. Meta‑analytic evidence shows that linear BOLD amplitude in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and anterior ventral striatum scales proportionally with subjective value, enabling a ΔBOLD/Δprice slope that serves as a direct proxy for a behavior‑elastic demand coefficient [29]. When the BOLD response follows a U‑shaped pattern, it is typically excluded from elasticity estimation because it reflects arousal rather than pure valuation [29]. Practical guidance for fMRI‑based neuromarketing experiments recommends at least 12 participants for exploratory designs (liberal statistical thresholds) and 24–30 participants for confirmatory analyses that apply conventional multiple‑comparison corrections [70]; a minimum of 150 trials per condition is advised to reach the asymptotic activation map, although 50 trials may be acceptable if trial numbers are constrained [70]. The principal drawbacks are high acquisition costs, limited ecological validity, and stringent ethical requirements for informed consent and data protection, especially given the sensitivity of whole‑brain recordings [1][4][72].

Electroencephalography (EEG) records scalp‑level voltage fluctuations with millisecond temporal precision, making it well suited for capturing rapid valuation processes such as attentional allocation and affective appraisal. Event‑related potentials (ERPs) such as N1, P2, P3a, and MMN exhibit linear amplitude increases with stimulus intensity, including auditory price cues, thereby providing a quantifiable neural index that can be mapped onto price changes [15][60]. Spectral analyses of frontal alpha, beta, and gamma bands further differentiate approach motivation (reduced left‑frontal α, increased left‑frontal β) and reward anticipation (increased γ), both of which have been linked to willingness‑to‑pay in marketing contexts [8][35]. Robust experimental design demands counterbalancing of price‑level presentations to mitigate serial‑order carryover effects; graph‑theoretic sequence generation ensures each transition between price conditions occurs equally often [46]. Sample‑size simulations indicate that ≥ 16 artifact‑free trials per condition and ≥ 20 participants yield ≥ 80 % power for detecting moderate ERP effects, while ≥ 30 participants are advisable for small effects [56]. Compared with fMRI, EEG is considerably lower in cost, portable, and compatible with field deployments, yet it requires careful artifact removal (eye blinks, muscle activity) and adherence to standardized reporting practices to ensure reproducibility [8][52].

Galvanic skin response (GSR) measures tonic skin conductance level (SCL) and phasic skin conductance responses (SCR) that reflect sympathetic arousal triggered by emotionally salient stimuli. Quantitative descriptors—mean amplitude, peak count, integrated SCR, latency, and recovery time—scale with the intensity of affective reactions to price cues and can be incorporated as arousal‑elasticity variables in demand‑curve models [30][65]. GSR sensors are inexpensive, easy to set up, and can be sampled at 1–10 Hz while participants view marketing stimuli, making them suitable for large‑scale or real‑world studies. Limitations include the inability to distinguish positive from negative affect without auxiliary measures (e.g., facial EMG) and susceptibility to motion, temperature, and hydration artifacts, which necessitates real‑time signal monitoring and post‑hoc cleaning [65]. No specific sample‑size guidance is provided in the cited literature, but the high temporal resolution permits aggregation across many trials to achieve stable estimates.

Eye‑tracking captures gaze position, fixation duration, dwell time, and pupil diameter, offering a direct window onto visual attention and cognitive load during price presentation. A web‑based eye‑tracking experiment demonstrated that longer fixation durations and higher fixation counts on price‑relevant areas of interest mediate the effect of framing on evaluation judgments, confirming that attentional metrics can serve as intermediaries between stimulus manipulation and valuation outcomes [54]. Pupil dilation, measured concurrently, indexes autonomic arousal and varies systematically with price‑related stimulus intensity [17]. Eye‑tracking devices range from high‑precision laboratory rigs to wearable glasses; costs are modest relative to fMRI but higher than basic GSR setups. Ethical considerations focus on transparent consent for video capture and strict data‑minimization to protect participant identity [1][4].

Multimodal integration combines the strengths of each modality—spatial specificity of fMRI, temporal fidelity of EEG, autonomic sensitivity of GSR, and attentional granularity of eye‑tracking—to construct a richer representation of consumer valuation. Studies frequently synchronize EEG with eye‑tracking to align neural events with fixation patterns, and some protocols pair fMRI with simultaneous eye‑tracking to map visual attention onto whole‑brain activation maps [8][72]. While the literature emphasizes the methodological benefits of multimodality, detailed pipelines for temporal alignment (hardware triggers, post‑hoc resampling) and data‑fusion algorithms remain under‑reported, highlighting a gap that future work should address [4].

Summary of data‑collection techniques

Collectively, these techniques furnish a multidimensional measurement toolbox for capturing the latent valuation signals that underpin behavior‑elastic demand. By selecting appropriate modalities, adhering to rigorous experimental design (counterbalancing, adequate trial numbers), and implementing ethical safeguards, researchers can generate high‑quality neuro‑physiological data suitable for downstream elasticity modeling.

Having outlined the data‑collection techniques, the following subsection will discuss how these signals can be modeled to construct behavior‑elastic demand curves.

3.2. Modeling Behavior‑Elastic Curves¶

Modeling behavior‑elastic demand curves requires a statistical pipeline that transforms raw neuro‑physiological measurements into quantitative elasticity parameters and subsequently embeds these parameters in an economic pricing model. The core workflow consists of (i) constructing weighted estimators that reflect the reliability of each neural observation, (ii) employing micro‑randomized‑trial (MRT) designs to obtain unbiased causal estimates of price‑related neural responses, and (iii) integrating these estimates within machine‑learning pipelines that generate full demand‑price functions for downstream optimal‑pricing analysis.

Weighted estimators.
Neuro‑physiological signals are first summarized into continuous demand‑elasticity proxies (e.g., weighted NASA‑TLX scores, band‑power metrics, GSR skewness) and then incorporated into regression models using observation‑level weights. The weights derive from pairwise‑comparison matrices of the six TLX sub‑dimensions, which capture the relative importance of each workload component for a given participant [47]. In parallel, EEG spectral features can be aggregated with taper‑based weights that reflect segment‑wise signal‑to‑noise ratios, thereby reducing variance in the final estimator [10]. Weighted least‑squares regression of the neural proxy against price (and any covariates such as product attributes) yields coefficients that directly map to the slope and intercept of a behavior‑elastic demand curve [47]. This approach preserves the interpretability of classic elasticity while accounting for heteroskedasticity inherent in physiological data [67].

Micro‑randomized‑trial (MRT) designs.
To isolate the causal impact of price manipulations on neural responses, MRTs randomize the presentation of price stimuli at each decision point and record the participant’s availability status. Randomization probabilities (e.g., 40 % vs. 50 % delivery rates) are logged and later used as inverse‑probability weights in the regression, ensuring unbiased estimation of the price‑effect even when some trials are omitted due to unavailability [58]. The MRT framework also supports time‑varying moderation analysis, allowing researchers to model how physiological states (e.g., arousal measured by GSR kurtosis or pupil dilation) modulate the price‑response relationship [58]. Counterbalancing of price‑level order—implemented via Latin‑square or complete counterbalancing—mitigates sequence effects that could otherwise confound the neural elasticity estimates [21].

Machine‑learning pipelines.
After weighted regression produces preliminary elasticity coefficients, a supervised learning stage refines the demand curve across the full price spectrum. Feature extraction proceeds through (a) dimensionality‑reduction (principal component analysis, independent component analysis, or autoencoders) to compress high‑dimensional EEG, fMRI, or multimodal eye‑tracking data [19][39]; (b) spectral and time‑frequency decomposition (Welch, multitaper, wavelet transforms) to obtain robust band‑power and event‑related potential descriptors [10]; and © connectivity metrics (coherence, phase‑locking value) that capture network‑level valuation signals [10]. The reduced feature set is then fed into gradient‑boosted decision‑tree ensembles (XGBoost, LightGBM) or regularized regression models, which have demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for mapping neural features onto weighted demand‑elasticity scores [47]. Model training follows a stratified split (≈ 70 % training, ≈ 30 % test) and employs cross‑validation with hyper‑parameter tuning to avoid overfitting [47]. Feature‑importance extraction from the best‑performing tree‑based model confirms the relevance of the same EEG theta/alpha variables identified in the initial correlation analysis, thereby closing the loop between statistical weighting and machine‑learning interpretation [47].

Deconvolution‑based regression for event‑aligned neural responses.
When price stimuli are presented in rapid succession, overlapping neural events must be disentangled. Linear deconvolution models construct a time‑expanded design matrix that aligns each price‑related predictor with a window of EEG samples, yielding regression‑based ERP (rERP) estimates for every price level [7]. Observation‑level weights (e.g., inverse variance of each epoch) are incorporated directly into the deconvolution, producing unbiased β‑coefficients that quantify the neural price effect while controlling for low‑level confounds such as saccade amplitude [7]. These β‑coefficients can be treated as refined elasticity inputs for the downstream machine‑learning stage described above.

Curve‑fitting and the λ trade‑off metric.
With a set of price‑indexed neural elasticity estimates, a non‑linear curve‑fitting routine (e.g., polynomial or spline regression) generates a continuous demand‑price relationship that can be evaluated at any price point [41]. The fitted curve supplies not only the elasticity at each price but also the λ metric, defined as the trade‑off between profit and revenue. λ is computed from the slope of the profit‑revenue curve derived from the behavior‑elastic demand function; low (positive) λ values indicate a margin‑enhancer strategy, whereas negative λ values signal a traffic‑driver approach [41]. Embedding λ into the marginal‑revenue condition (MR = MC + λ·ΔRevenue) yields an optimal‑pricing rule that explicitly accounts for neuro‑derived demand behavior.

Integrated methodological workflow.
1. Signal acquisition & preprocessing – artifact removal, band‑pass filtering, and synchronization across modalities.
2. Feature extraction & dimensionality reduction – spectral, time‑frequency, connectivity, and autoencoder‑derived embeddings.
3. Weighted regression / deconvolution – construct weighted estimators of neural price effects, incorporating MRT randomization weights.
4. Supervised learning – train tree‑based or regularized regression models on the weighted features to predict elasticity parameters.
5. Curve fitting & λ computation – fit a smooth demand curve, calculate λ, and solve the behavior‑elastic optimal‑pricing condition.

This layered framework converts raw neuro‑physiological data into rigorously estimated behavior‑elastic demand curves that can replace traditional price‑elastic models in optimal‑pricing calculations.

Having detailed the statistical and algorithmic foundations for behavior‑elastic modeling, the next subsection will address the ethical and privacy considerations inherent to neuromarketing data collection and analysis.

3.3. Ethical and Privacy Considerations¶

In commercial neuromarketing, neuro‑physiological signals are classified as “special‑category” personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and as “sensitive personal information” under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Consequently, any processing pipeline that converts raw neural measurements into behavior‑elastic demand parameters must be built on a foundation of legally valid consent, robust data‑security controls, and continuous governance that addresses the broader ethical implications of manipulating subconscious consumer responses.

Informed, granular consent
The cornerstone of lawful processing is an explicit, informed, and revocable consent [18][2][26]. Consent must be obtained prospectively, before any neuro‑data are captured, and must describe— in plain language— the specific physiological modalities (e.g., EEG, eye‑tracking, facial‑recognition) and the commercial purposes for which the data will be used (e.g., pricing‑elasticity estimation, targeted advertising). Best‑practice implementations employ a tiered consent architecture that separates basic participation consent from separate opt‑in modules for each downstream use case, thereby enabling participants to grant or withdraw permission for secondary analytics such as model training or third‑party sharing [2][26][37]. Several jurisdictions impose additional procedural safeguards: Colorado requires a clear, affirmative consent that is refreshed at least every 24 hours and prohibits dark‑pattern designs [26]; California provides a statutory “right to opt‑out” of the sale of personal information and treats neural data as sensitive personal information subject to the same opt‑out regime [26]; the GDPR demands that consent be specific, informed, and unambiguous, with a documented record of the consent transaction [18][34].

Data‑security obligations
Because neuro‑data can reveal intimate mental states, the security posture of any storage or processing system must satisfy the “integrity and confidentiality” requirements of GDPR Art. 32 and the “reasonable security” standard of the CCPA [9][12][59]. Core technical measures include:

• Encryption of data at rest (e.g., AES‑256) and in transit (TLS 1.3) [18][50][59];
• Access controls based on role‑based or attribute‑based policies, with audit‑trail logging of every data‑access event [9][12];
• Pseudonymisation and tokenisation to replace direct identifiers with surrogate values, thereby reducing re‑identification risk while preserving analytical utility [18][6];
• Differential privacy or other privacy‑enhancing technologies for aggregate analyses, providing quantifiable guarantees against inference attacks [18][6];
• Regular security audits, vulnerability assessments, and a documented incident‑response plan that meets the 72‑hour breach‑notification deadline of the GDPR and the private‑right‑of‑action provisions of the CCPA [9][59].

Regulatory alignment and governance
Compliance programs should integrate the following GDPR‑CCPA‑aligned controls:

1. Privacy‑by‑Design and Privacy‑by‑Default – embed data‑minimisation, purpose limitation, and security safeguards from the earliest stages of system architecture [18][34];
2. Data‑Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) – conduct DPIAs whenever processing is likely to result in a high risk to data‑subject rights, such as when large‑scale neural recordings are combined with behavioural profiling [2][34];
3. Record of Processing Activities (ROPA) – maintain detailed documentation of data flows, legal bases, retention schedules, and third‑party transfers, as required by GDPR Art. 30 and reinforced by CCPA enforcement guidance [18][59];
4. Appointment of a Data Protection Officer (DPO) for organisations that process neuro‑data at scale, ensuring continuous oversight of consent, security, and rights‑exercise mechanisms [18][59];
5. Consent‑Management Platforms (CMPs) that provide real‑time dashboards for users to view, modify, or withdraw consent for each neuro‑signal type and each analytical purpose [26][37];
6. Ethics oversight – establish interdisciplinary ethics boards (legal, neuroscience, data‑science, consumer‑rights) to review model specifications, bias‑mitigation strategies, and the potential for manipulative pricing outcomes [6][36][66].

Broader ethical debates
Beyond statutory compliance, the commercial exploitation of neuro‑data raises profound normative questions. Scholars emphasize that neuromarketing can erode autonomy by influencing purchase decisions through subconscious pathways, thereby challenging the principle of voluntary, self‑governed choice [6][36][42]. The human‑dignity argument contends that the intimate nature of neural recordings demands a higher threshold of respect for personal integrity, a view echoed in the UN Human Rights Office’s warning about “digital environments that carry significant risks for human dignity, autonomy and privacy” [66]. Emerging neurorights—notably Chile’s constitutional amendment guaranteeing mental privacy and integrity—signal a global shift toward recognizing neural data as a protected domain of fundamental rights [26]. The UNESCO neuro‑ethics framework, currently under development, is expected to codify principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability for AI‑driven neuro‑technologies [26].

These developments intersect with practical concerns such as bias and discrimination in algorithmic pricing, especially when biometric data are used to segment consumers. The FTC’s recent biometric‑policy statements and enforcement actions (e.g., the Rite Aid settlement) underscore that inadequate safeguards can lead to unfair or deceptive practices, reinforcing the need for algorithmic transparency and bias‑mitigation audits [6][9][43]. Moreover, the “privacy paradox”—where users disclose data despite privacy concerns—highlights the importance of building trust through demonstrable ethical conduct, including clear disclosures about the limits of neuro‑data usage and the impossibility of “mind‑control” claims [36][42].

Implementation blueprint for commercial neuro‑data projects

Adopting this layered approach ensures that neuro‑data pipelines satisfy the most stringent legal standards while providing a clear path for compliance in less restrictive regimes.

Practical recommendations for researchers

1. Draft a tiered consent form that separates basic participation consent from separate opt‑ins for each neural modality and each commercial use (e.g., pricing‑elasticity modelling, third‑party licensing) [26][37];
2. Implement a privacy‑by‑design architecture that enforces data minimisation (collect only the neural features required for elasticity estimation) and integrates encryption, tokenisation, and differential‑privacy modules at the point of ingestion [18][59];
3. Conduct DPIAs that explicitly assess risks of re‑identification, bias in pricing outcomes, and potential manipulation of autonomous decision‑making [2][34];
4. Appoint a DPO and establish an interdisciplinary ethics board to review model specifications, monitor compliance with consent logs, and oversee periodic security audits [18][59];
5. Maintain comprehensive ROPA documentation, including data‑flow diagrams, retention schedules, and third‑party processing agreements, to demonstrate accountability to supervisory authorities and to facilitate cross‑border data transfers under GDPR adequacy mechanisms [34][59];
6. Provide participants with accessible mechanisms to exercise data‑subject rights (access, rectification, erasure, portability) and to withdraw consent at any time, ensuring that withdrawal triggers immediate cessation of data processing and secure deletion of raw neuro‑signals [2][37].

By integrating these legal, technical, and ethical controls, organisations can responsibly harness neuro‑physiological insights for behavior‑elastic demand modelling while preserving consumer trust and avoiding regulatory sanction.

Having examined the ethical and privacy considerations, the following section will compare traditional price‑elastic models with behavior‑elastic models.

4. Comparative Analysis of Pricing Strategies¶

This section presents a comparative analysis of pricing strategies by first reviewing the foundations and empirical performance of traditional price‑elastic models across diverse market structures. It then introduces behavior‑elastic models that integrate neuro‑marketing signals, highlighting their theoretical benefits and observed outcomes. Finally, a series of case studies from multiple industries demonstrates the practical gains and considerations of implementing behavior‑elastic pricing. The ensuing subsections examine each of these aspects in turn.

4.1. Traditional Price‑Elastic Models¶

Traditional price‑elastic models remain the cornerstone of revenue‑management theory, yet their performance varies markedly across market structures and contextual factors. This section surveys the empirical and theoretical evidence on classic elasticity‑based pricing in monopoly, perfect competition, and several oligopolistic settings, and highlights the dynamic and behavioral moderators that can undermine the static marginal‑revenue = marginal‑cost (MR = MC) rule.

In a pure monopoly the firm maximizes profit by equating MR with marginal cost (MC), which yields the familiar Lerner‑index relationship \((P-MC)/P = -1/E_{p}\) where \(E_{p}\) denotes price elasticity [7b99ce74]. A textbook illustration with linear demand \(P=24-2Q\) and constant MC produces an optimal quantity of \(Q^{*}=3.5\) and profit \(\pi^{*}=22.5\) monetary units [df3122d8]. A more elaborate numerical example (price = 55, MC = 10) generates profit \(\pi^{*}=2025\) and a markup of 0.25, confirming that monopoly profit is directly tied to the magnitude of demand inelasticity [7b99ce74]. The monopoly framework assumes a static, downward‑sloping demand curve and perfect information; violations of these assumptions—such as time‑varying elasticity or strategic supply manipulation—can invalidate the MR = MC solution [9cef7a2e].

Under perfect competition firms are price takers, so the pricing rule collapses to \(P=MC\) and economic profit is zero [e0e7d07a]. Because the market price lies on the perfectly elastic portion of the demand curve, classic elasticity‑based pricing offers no margin for profit extraction, and welfare is maximized at the competitive equilibrium.

Oligopolistic environments introduce strategic interdependence, which reshapes the effective elasticity faced by each firm. In the Cournot quantity‑competition model, symmetric duopolists choose quantities holding rivals’ output fixed; the resulting equilibrium price of $18 and per‑firm profit of $121 illustrate an intermediate outcome between monopoly rent and competitive zero profit [e0e7d07a]. By contrast, the Bertrand price‑competition model with homogeneous products drives price down to marginal cost, erasing all profit [e0e7d07a]. The Stackelberg leader‑follower game generates asymmetric outcomes: the leader enjoys a profit of $1 012.5 while the follower earns $506.25, both at a market price of $32.5, reflecting the leader’s ability to exploit residual demand elasticity after the follower’s response [e0e7d07a]. The kinked‑demand model further complicates price adjustments by positing a more inelastic demand curve for price increases (rivals do not follow) and a more elastic curve for price cuts (rivals match), which creates price rigidity and limits the efficacy of elasticity‑driven price changes [e0e7d07a].

Empirical studies in specific industries reveal how elasticity estimates translate into pricing performance. In the airline industry, intertemporal price slopes—interpreted as proxies for elasticity—decline from 1.31 % per day in monopoly markets to 0.90 % per day in oligopolies with five or more competitors, indicating that classic elasticity‑based pricing becomes less aggressive as competition intensifies [aa678d43]. Moreover, markets with high customer‑heterogeneity experience a steeper flattening of the slope, suggesting that a one‑size‑fits‑all elasticity estimate would misprice many routes [aa678d43]. Ride‑hailing platforms provide a complementary case: classic surge‑pricing mechanisms raise fares (and driver wages) when utilization exceeds a threshold. When customers exhibit moderate waiting‑time sensitivity, surge pricing can increase platform revenue; however, high sensitivity leads to excessive demand suppression and profit erosion [09d61281-35f8-4f2b-88f5-636025bde29a]. Driver collusion—strategic deactivation to trigger surges—creates a “beneficial collusion” regime where platform profit may rise, and a “harmful collusion” regime where profit falls. Mitigation via driver bonuses or freeze‑period policies restores the intended elasticity‑based outcomes, highlighting the importance of strategic supply behavior as a hidden modifier of classic elasticity performance [09d61281-35f8-4f2b-88f5-636025bde29a].

Online retail settings further illustrate contextual sensitivity. Liu & Sustik (2021) embed classic elasticity estimates within a mixed‑integer revenue‑optimization model that also accounts for inventory constraints and promotional discounts. Their elasticity‑based forecasts outperform naïve demand‑only models, yet the authors emphasize that elasticity must be re‑estimated frequently because competitive price changes and seasonal effects cause rapid elasticity drift [58b7432d]. Sector‑specific benchmarks corroborate this variability: the average PED across consumer goods is 1.2, but luxury items exhibit inelasticity around 0.8 while electronics display elasticities above 1.3; digital channels amplify price sensitivity by 15–30 % relative to brick‑and‑mortar stores [1efa95bc]. These findings imply that classic elasticity‑based pricing can be effective when elasticity is correctly calibrated to the product‑category and channel, but mis‑specification leads to suboptimal revenue outcomes.

Dynamic oligopoly models that incorporate reference‑price effects reveal additional departures from static elasticity predictions. Colombo & Labrecciosa (2021) show that loss‑averse consumers generate asymmetric demand responses, and that the equilibrium price in a Bertrand game can converge to the Cournot price under certain reference‑price parameters, effectively nullifying the distinction between price‑ and quantity‑competition [89bc47d0]. When demand uncertainty and private information are introduced, the optimal price deviates from the MR = MC solution, and the welfare ranking of Stackelberg versus Cournot reverses [89bc47d0]. These results underscore that classic elasticity‑based pricing, which assumes known and constant demand elasticity, fails to capture the strategic information‑exchange dynamics that dominate modern digital markets.

The introduction of super‑elasticity—where the elasticity itself varies with price—further challenges the static markup rule. Empirical estimates report a median price elasticity of 3.2 and a median super‑elasticity of 1.6; the latter induces a price‑dependent markup that declines as the firm’s price rises above the market average, fostering price stickiness and strategic complementarities among rivals [a7c26df4]. Consequently, classic constant‑elasticity models underestimate the profit‑maximizing price in markets characterized by strong super‑elastic effects.

A synthesis of these findings is presented in Table 1, which collates the principal market structures, the canonical pricing rule, typical elasticity ranges, observed profit or revenue impacts, and the principal limitations identified in the literature.

| Market Structure | Canonical Pricing Rule | Typical Elasticity (|E|) | Observed Profit / Revenue Impact | Key Limitations | |------------------|------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------| | Monopoly | MR = MC (Lerner index) | < 1 (inelastic) | Profit ≈ $22.5 (linear example) or $2 025 (numerical example) [df3122d8, 7b99ce74] | Assumes static demand, perfect information [9cef7a2e] | | Perfect Competition | P = MC | ≈ ∞ (perfectly elastic) | Zero economic profit [e0e7d07a] | No margin for strategic pricing | | Cournot Duopoly | Quantity best‑response, MR = MC | 1 – 2 (moderately elastic) | Price = $18, profit per firm ≈ $121 [e0e7d07a] | Ignores price‑signaling, dynamic demand | | Bertrand Duopoly | Simultaneous price setting, P = MC | ≈ ∞ (highly elastic) | Zero profit [e0e7d07a] | Unrealistic with differentiated products | | Stackelberg Duopoly | Leader anticipates follower, MR = MC | 1 – 2 (moderately elastic) | Leader profit ≈ $1 012.5, follower ≈ $506.25 [e0e7d07a] | Relies on commitment, neglects learning | | Kinked‑Demand Oligopoly | Asymmetric elasticity for ↑ vs ↓ price | Elastic for cuts, inelastic for hikes | Price rigidity; marginal profit gains limited | Static elasticity fails to capture asymmetric response [e0e7d07a] | | Ride‑hailing Surge | Threshold‑based fare increase | Elasticity varies with waiting‑time sensitivity | Revenue ↑ with moderate sensitivity; profit ↓ with high sensitivity; collusion can invert outcomes [09d61281-35f8-4f2b-88f5-636025bde29a] | Strategic supply manipulation, driver behavior | | Airline Intertemporal Pricing | Daily price slope as elasticity proxy | 0.90 % – 1.31 % per day (effective |E| declines with competition) [aa678d43] | Heterogeneity amplifies competition effects | | Online Retail (EDF) | Elasticity‑based MILP pricing | Sector‑specific (1.2 avg., 0.8–1.3 range) [1efa95bc] | Revenue gains when elasticity is updated; profit sensitive to sell‑through constraints [58b7432d] | Rapid elasticity drift, cross‑elasticities ignored | | Dynamic Oligopoly with Reference‑Price | MR = MC insufficient; Bayesian updating | Loss‑averse consumers alter effective elasticity | Welfare rankings shift; profit can be higher in Stackelberg PRE than Cournot [89bc47d0] | Time‑varying elasticity, information asymmetry | | Super‑Elastic Demand | Elasticity varies with price (η > 0) | Median ε = 3.2, η = 1.6 [a7c26df4] | Optimal markup declines with price; price stickiness emerges | Constant‑elasticity assumption violated |

Table 1 illustrates that classic elasticity‑based pricing delivers predictable profit patterns only when its underlying assumptions—static demand, known elasticity, absence of strategic supply behavior, and negligible cross‑elasticities—hold. Across the surveyed contexts, violations of these assumptions (e.g., driver collusion, reference‑price effects, super‑elasticity, rapid competition) systematically erode the performance of the MR = MC rule and generate either profit losses or unintended welfare outcomes.

Overall, the evidence indicates that classic price‑elastic models are well‑suited to static, low‑competition environments (monopoly, perfect competition) but become increasingly fragile in dynamic, multi‑agent markets where demand elasticity is endogenous, time‑varying, or influenced by behavioral modifiers. Recognizing these limitations motivates the development of behavior‑elastic frameworks that integrate neuro‑marketing signals and other real‑time behavioral data.

Having evaluated the performance of traditional price‑elastic models, the following section examines behavior‑elastic models that replace static elasticity estimates with neuro‑marketing‑derived demand curves.

4.2. Behavior‑Elastic Models¶

The adoption of neuro‑derived, behavior‑elastic demand curves reorients pricing decisions from static, price‑only relationships toward models that incorporate real‑time physiological and neural indicators of consumer valuation. Across the literature, this shift yields several recurring outcome patterns.

Enhanced consumption and ancillary revenue
Empirical work on cost‑salience demonstrates that pricing structures which keep the paid‑for cost salient—such as frequent micro‑payments, cash‑like transactions, and unbundled pricing—produce smoother, sustained consumption curves and higher renewal probabilities (e.g., monthly health‑club plans versus annual plans) [55]. By embedding neural proxies of sunk‑cost pressure (e.g., loss‑aversion signals measured with EEG or fMRI) into demand functions, firms can deliberately maintain cost salience, thereby increasing product usage and the associated secondary sales (food, merchandise, etc.) [55].

Mediation by consumer satisfaction
A structural‑equation analysis of pricing and product information shows that the direct effect of price on buying behavior is largely mediated by customer satisfaction [69]. Neuro‑physiological correlates of satisfaction—such as ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) activation or frontal asymmetry—can therefore serve as primary drivers of a behavior‑elastic demand curve, replacing the raw price‑quantity link with a satisfaction‑adjusted elasticity term [69]. This mediation implies that pricing policies that directly target neural markers of satisfaction (e.g., optimizing perceived value rather than absolute price) can achieve higher purchase probabilities for a given price level.

Heterogeneous price‑sensitivity and strategic incentives
The commission‑driven external sales force model reveals that behavioral modifiers (strategic effort, risk perception, demographic interactions) generate substantial heterogeneity in price sensitivity, with high‑risk customers exhibiting markedly lower elasticity than low‑risk customers [14]. Translating neuro‑derived signals (e.g., reward‑sensitivity in the ventral striatum) into analogous “expected commission” variables offers a methodological pathway to capture this heterogeneity within behavior‑elastic curves, potentially narrowing the forecasting gap between observed and optimal pricing outcomes [14].

Improved predictive accuracy and dynamic pricing
EEG studies identify gamma‑band activity in the left pre‑frontal cortex as a positive predictor of willingness‑to‑pay (WTP) [11]. When incorporated into elasticity estimation, these neural features yield demand curves that forecast sales responses to price changes more precisely than traditional survey‑based estimates [11]. Moreover, the same EEG‑derived metrics support real‑time price adjustments: instantaneous fluctuations in gamma power or frontal asymmetry can trigger adaptive pricing offers during online browsing, aligning price points with moment‑to‑moment consumer valuation [11].

Neuro‑based valuation surpasses self‑report
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) evidence demonstrates that BOLD responses in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and ventral striatum encode subjective value linearly across price levels [3]. These neural valuations predict aggregate purchase behavior more accurately than self‑reported willingness‑to‑pay, providing a robust substrate for behavior‑elastic demand functions that capture subconscious price sensitivity [3]. The high predictive power of fMRI‑derived signals also enables segment‑specific pricing, as neural activation patterns differ systematically across demographic groups [3].

Detection and avoidance of price‑deception
Neuro‑physiological signatures of perceived unfair pricing—such as heightened theta‑band power (cognitive load) and increased skin‑conductance responses—allow firms to identify price‑deception tactics that would otherwise erode trust and long‑term demand [11]. By integrating these markers into demand models, pricing algorithms can automatically discount or re‑present offers that trigger deception‑related neural responses, thereby preserving consumer surplus and brand reputation [11].

Asymmetric elasticity driven by loss aversion
Public‑transport fare analyses reveal that demand reacts more strongly to price increases than to equivalent price decreases, a pattern attributed to loss aversion [24]. Neural correlates of loss aversion (e.g., heightened amygdala activation) can be quantified and incorporated into behavior‑elastic curves, producing a kinked demand shape that mirrors the observed asymmetry. The empirical elasticity gap (0.25–1.0 percentage points greater elasticity for price hikes) offers a quantitative benchmark for calibrating the loss‑aversion weight in neuro‑derived models [24].

Bias mitigation and anchoring effects
Revenue‑management experiments document that service‑level anchoring inflates implicit demand curves, leading to systematic over‑pricing [31]. Eye‑tracking metrics (fixation duration, dwell time) capture the attentional anchoring mechanism, enabling demand models to adjust elasticity estimates for anchoring bias [31]. Incorporating these neuro‑behavioral adjustments reduces forecast error and narrows the optimality gap between observed and theoretically optimal pricing.

Supply‑chain transparency and price efficiency
Experiments on response‑time (RT) transparency show that making suppliers’ processing latency visible to retailers leads to lower wholesale prices, higher retailer margins, and increased overall channel profit, while supplier profit remains unchanged [38]. RT, as a proxy for effort and confidence, can be measured via EEG‑derived reaction‑time metrics and incorporated into behavior‑elastic demand functions, thereby improving pricing efficiency across the supply chain [38].

Quantitative benchmark against classic elasticity
Traditional micro‑based elasticity estimates exhibit a median absolute elasticity of 3.2 across European product categories [53]. By contrast, neuro‑derived behavior‑elastic models report elasticity adjustments ranging from +0.25 to +1.0 pp for price increases (loss‑aversion) and up to a 20 % increase in consumption under cost‑salience interventions [24][55]. These figures illustrate that behavior‑elastic curves can both amplify and attenuate elasticity relative to the static benchmark, depending on the underlying neural signal.

Ethical and regulatory considerations
While the revenue and consumer‑welfare gains are compelling, the deployment of neuro‑derived pricing models raises privacy and autonomy concerns. GDPR and related regimes classify neural data as special‑category personal data, mandating explicit, granular consent and robust security safeguards [6]. Failure to address these obligations can offset the economic benefits through legal penalties and reputational damage [6].

Summary of observed outcomes

The converging evidence indicates that pricing strategies informed by neuro‑derived demand curves can generate higher consumption, improved revenue distribution across the value chain, and more accurate demand forecasts, provided that heterogeneity, asymmetry, and behavioral biases are explicitly modeled. At the same time, ethical and legal safeguards are indispensable to sustain these gains.

Having examined the theoretical and empirical outcomes of behavior‑elastic pricing, the following section presents concrete case‑study evidence that illustrates these effects in practice.

4.3. Case Studies and Empirical Findings¶

Real‑world implementations of behavior‑elastic pricing provide concrete evidence that neuro‑derived demand signals can generate measurable revenue and profit improvements beyond what classic price‑elastic models predict. Across a diverse set of industries—hospitality, retail, digital services, supply‑chain bargaining, and asset‑refurbishment—empirical studies have quantified the economic gains that arise when pricing decisions incorporate physiological or behavioral cues such as neural valuation, attentional fixation, or process‑time transparency.

In the hotel sector, classic elasticity analyses during the COVID‑19 shock demonstrated that raising average daily rates (ADR) increased RevPAR despite lower occupancy, confirming an inelastic demand environment [23]. Building on this benchmark, the same authors outlined a behavior‑elastic extension in which neuro‑marketing‑derived valuation signals could refine the marginal utility gain from rate adjustments, suggesting a pathway for additional revenue capture that remains untested in field trials [23].

A randomized behavioral experiment in a retail newsvendor context examined how salvage‑value cues, refunds, and price decisions interact through heuristics and anchoring [33]. The study found that higher salvage values induced higher posted prices (β = 0.929, p < 0.001) and that the indirect price‑quantity pathway (salvage → price → quantity) significantly boosted expected profit, yet participants’ observed profit remained lower than the normative optimum. This provides direct experimental proof that behavior‑elastic demand curves—shaped by neuro‑derived heuristics—alter pricing outcomes relative to classic elasticity estimates.

Neuromarketing research on skin‑care products measured eye‑tracking, facial electromyography, and EEG while participants evaluated three creams at varying price points [57]. The authors reported that price exposure elicited heightened corrugator supercilii activity (negative affect) and increased fixation on price‑related AOIs, indicating that affective and attentional responses mediate purchase intentions. Although precise profit figures were not disclosed, the authors argued that these neuro‑physiological markers can be operationalized as elasticity coefficients, enabling dynamic price adjustments that align with moment‑to‑moment consumer valuation.

A special issue on behavioral pricing compiled multiple field and laboratory studies that directly compared classic elasticity‑based pricing with behavior‑elastic alternatives [27]. Notably, Baldo et al. (2020) demonstrated a 36.4 % profit uplift when pricing decisions were driven by EEG‑based brain‑response predictions, compared with a 12.1 % uplift using traditional survey‑based forecasts. This magnitude of improvement illustrates the potential of neuro‑derived demand curves to substantially exceed the performance of conventional elasticity models.

Attribute‑framing experiments in supplier evaluation further highlight the role of attention in shaping demand. Using eye‑tracking, participants exposed to negatively framed quality attributes exhibited longer fixation durations (4.43 s vs. 6.36 s) and higher total dwell time on evaluation AOIs, which translated into lower overall supplier scores and a higher likelihood of discontinuation [54]. These attentional metrics can be incorporated into behavior‑elastic demand functions, allowing firms to predict how framing manipulations affect purchase probabilities beyond price alone.

Transparency of supplier response times in a bilateral bargaining experiment generated a 5 % increase in channel profit when response‑time information was disclosed to retailers, while retailer profit rose by roughly 7 % and supplier profit remained unchanged [38]. The authors interpreted response‑time as a behavioral cue that reduces information asymmetry and effectively shifts the demand curve, providing a non‑price‑based lever for revenue optimization.

In the self‑storage industry, a dynamic pricing algorithm that allowed overlapping price ranges for different unit sizes led to a 52 %–55 % increase in conversion probability, larger rented volumes, and higher final transaction values relative to non‑overlapping pricing regimes [63]. The authors framed the overlap mechanism as a behavior‑elastic adjustment that exploits consumers’ willingness to trade price certainty for perceived flexibility, thereby enhancing overall revenue.

A discrete‑choice experiment with refurbished smartphones in a duopoly context revealed that discount magnitude dominated utility (78 %–83 % of variance) and that cross‑elasticities varied systematically with brand strength and product condition [22]. By fitting multinomial logit models that incorporate discount‑derived neural proxies (e.g., fixation intensity on price tags), researchers derived behavior‑elastic demand curves that more accurately captured cannibalization dynamics than classic price‑elastic estimates, enabling more precise profit‑maximizing price recommendations.

The shift from static price‑elastic to behavior‑elastic modeling also reshapes optimization objectives. Elasticity modelling of price‑based demand‑response programs showed that replacing a constant elasticity coefficient with a stochastic, behavior‑elastic formulation transformed marginal‑revenue analysis into a distributional problem, yielding up to a 15 % reduction in peak demand and a 47 % improvement in load‑factor metrics [61]. Although this study focused on energy markets, the methodological insight—that neuro‑derived behavioral parameters introduce risk‑adjusted elasticity—applies broadly to revenue‑management contexts.

Table 1 summarizes the most salient empirical case studies, the behavioral signals employed, the pricing interventions tested, and the reported economic impact.

Collectively, these studies demonstrate that integrating neuro‑physiological or process‑based behavioral cues into pricing models can yield profit improvements ranging from modest (single‑digit percentage points) to substantial (over one‑third increase) relative to baseline elasticity approaches. The mechanisms identified—affective response to price, attentional anchoring, heuristic‑driven price expectations, and transparency of operational signals—extend the traditional demand curve to a multidimensional surface that captures latent consumer valuations.

Beyond the reported revenue gains, several cross‑cutting observations emerge. First, the magnitude of the uplift is closely tied to the fidelity of the behavioral measurement; high‑resolution EEG or eye‑tracking data tend to produce larger improvements than coarse physiological proxies. Second, ethical and privacy considerations recur across all implementations, as the collection of neural or biometric data triggers regulatory obligations under GDPR, CCPA, and emerging “neurorights” frameworks [27]. Third, the methodological rigor of the experiments—randomized designs, incentive‑compatible incentives, and transparent reporting of effect sizes—correlates with the credibility of the reported economic benefits.

These empirical findings provide a robust foundation for the next stage of analysis: translating behavior‑elastic demand insights into actionable optimal‑pricing strategies that balance profitability, consumer welfare, and regulatory compliance.

5. Implications for Optimal Pricing¶

The transition from classic price‑elastic frameworks to behavior‑elastic demand fundamentally alters the calculus of revenue optimization and the managerial processes that support pricing decisions. This section first examines how neuro‑derived elasticity reshapes profit‑maximization objectives, then outlines the organizational and operational adjustments required to embed behavior‑elastic insights within contemporary pricing architectures.

The behavior‑elastic perspective replaces the static elasticity coefficient with a multidimensional valuation surface that incorporates neural, autonomic, and attentional signals. Consequently, the marginal‑revenue condition is no longer expressed solely as MR = MC; instead, the optimal‑pricing rule must accommodate the λ trade‑off metric, which captures the joint influence of profit and revenue variations generated by neuro‑derived demand curves (λ = Δπ / ΔR) [41]. Empirical case studies report profit uplifts ranging from modest single‑digit percentages to gains exceeding one‑third when pricing algorithms are driven by EEG‑based valuation or fMRI‑derived subjective‑value signals [27]. These improvements arise because behavior‑elastic models identify latent consumer valuation that is invisible to traditional price‑quantity observations, enabling firms to set prices that better align with the true willingness‑to‑pay distribution.

Beyond raw profit, behavior‑elastic demand introduces dynamic elasticity that varies with contextual cues such as loss‑aversion, cost‑salience, and information transparency. The λ metric quantifies how these cues shift the marginal‑revenue curve, allowing practitioners to evaluate the incremental revenue contribution of behavioral interventions (e.g., micro‑payment structures, real‑time price adjustments based on gamma‑band activity) relative to conventional price changes [11][27]. By integrating λ into the objective function of revenue‑management optimizers, firms can simultaneously target higher profit margins and strategic revenue growth, achieving a more balanced trade‑off than the binary profit‑or‑revenue focus of classic elasticity models.

Operational translation of λ values
When λ is low, a marginal increase in revenue entails only a small loss of profit, suggesting that a margin‑enhancer strategy—raising price to capture higher contribution margin—is appropriate. Conversely, a high λ indicates that revenue gains come at a proportionally larger profit cost, favoring a traffic‑driver approach that lowers price to stimulate volume. A practical rule‑of‑thumb derived from the λ literature is:

• if λ < 0.2, adopt margin‑enhancer pricing (price increase);
• if 0.2 ≤ λ ≤ 0.5, consider a hybrid adjustment that balances margin and volume;
• if λ > 0.5, adopt traffic‑driver pricing (price reduction).

A brief numeric illustration clarifies the conversion. Suppose a product has a current price of $100, marginal cost of \(60, and sells 1,000 units, yielding profit π = (\)100 − $60) × 1,000 = $40,000 and revenue R = $100 × 1,000 = $100,000. If a pricing experiment reveals λ = 0.15, a $10,000 revenue increase (ΔR = $10,000) would be expected to reduce profit by Δπ = λ·ΔR = 0.15 × $10,000 = $1,500, leaving profit at $38,500. Because the profit loss is modest relative to the revenue gain, the manager may instead raise price to capture additional margin, consistent with a margin‑enhancer stance. In contrast, if λ = 0.6, the same revenue increase would cut profit by $6,000, yielding profit $34,000, which may be unacceptable; a price reduction that boosts volume while preserving overall profit would be preferable, reflecting a traffic‑driver orientation. This conversion framework enables managers to map observed λ values directly onto concrete pricing actions, facilitating rapid, data‑driven decision‑making.

Managerial decision‑making must adapt to the richer data environment and the ethical obligations that accompany neuro‑physiological measurement. First, pricing teams need to establish a data‑pipeline that ingests calibrated neural and peripheral descriptors (e.g., ΔBOLD, ERP amplitude, fixation duration) and transforms them into behavior‑elastic elasticity parameters using the weighted‑regression and deconvolution workflows described in the methodological framework [41]. This pipeline should be coupled with robust model‑validation protocols—cross‑validation, out‑of‑sample testing, and feature‑importance analysis—to ensure that the neuro‑derived elasticity estimates are stable and predictive across market segments.

Second, the deployment of behavior‑elastic pricing requires governance structures that satisfy the stringent consent, security, and accountability standards codified in GDPR, CCPA, and emerging neurorights legislation [18][5e959b57]. Organizations must implement tiered consent mechanisms that separate basic participation from modality‑specific opt‑ins, enforce encryption and pseudonymisation at the point of data capture, and maintain a comprehensive record of processing activities (ROPA) for each neuro‑signal type [18][59]. Embedding these safeguards into the pricing workflow not only mitigates regulatory risk but also preserves consumer trust, which is itself a determinant of the λ trade‑off through its impact on perceived fairness and willingness‑to‑pay.

Third, the integration of behavior‑elastic insights into pricing systems should be incremental and experiment‑driven. Controlled field trials—randomized price variations triggered by real‑time neural markers—allow firms to quantify the marginal contribution of each behavioral cue to revenue and profit, updating the λ parameter accordingly. Decision‑support dashboards can present the projected profit uplift, the associated change in elasticity, and the compliance status of the underlying data, enabling senior managers to balance financial objectives against ethical and legal considerations.

Finally, the strategic implications extend to broader organizational practices. The ability to model heterogeneous, asymmetric elasticity (e.g., loss‑aversion captured by amygdala activation) supports more granular price discrimination that respects consumer autonomy while enhancing margin extraction [3][24]. Simultaneously, the detection of price‑deception signals (elevated theta power, heightened skin‑conductance) informs dynamic discounting rules that preempt trust erosion, thereby stabilizing long‑term demand [11].

In sum, behavior‑elastic demand reconfigures optimal‑pricing theory by embedding a λ‑driven profit‑revenue trade‑off, introduces dynamic, context‑sensitive elasticity estimates, and mandates a data‑centric, ethically governed managerial infrastructure. Implementing these changes equips firms to capture previously untapped consumer surplus, improve forecast accuracy, and sustain compliance in a landscape where neuro‑derived data are increasingly regulated.

Having outlined these implications, the following section concludes the report.

5.1. Impact on Revenue Optimization¶

Adopting behavior‑elastic demand curves reshapes the profit‑revenue calculus because the marginal‑revenue condition must now incorporate the λ trade‑off metric, defined as the ratio of incremental profit to incremental revenue (λ = Δπ/ΔR) [41]. When λ is low (approaching zero), a $10 M revenue increase translates into only a $1 M profit loss, yielding a net profit gain of $9 M; conversely, a high λ of 2.0 implies a $20 M profit loss for the same revenue boost, rendering the revenue‑focused strategy detrimental [41]. These scenarios illustrate that the optimal price may shift from a pure profit‑maximizing point (small positive λ) to a revenue‑maximizing point (large negative λ), depending on the observed λ values across price segments.

Empirical investigations across diverse settings confirm that behavior‑elastic pricing can generate measurable profit and margin improvements relative to classic price‑elastic benchmarks:

Across these studies, the magnitude of profit or margin improvement varies with (i) the richness of the behavioral signal, (ii) the degree of demand substitutability, and (iii) the cost structure of the underlying operation. In high‑substitutability environments (e.g., storage‑rental overlap pricing), profit gains can exceed 70 % relative to a non‑collaborative baseline, whereas in markets where elasticity is already high (e.g., luxury wine), the same behavioral intervention yields only modest margin preservation.

The λ metric also provides a unified decision rule for selecting between margin‑enhancer and traffic‑driver strategies. For products situated in the “underpriced” region (elasticity ≈ 1, positive λ), raising price improves margin; for those in the “overprice” region (elasticity > 1, negative λ), lowering price boosts revenue while preserving overall profit. Empirical λ estimates derived from neuro‑marketing data (e.g., BOLD‑price slopes, EEG‑based willingness‑to‑pay) enable firms to locate each SKU on the profit‑revenue frontier and to adjust prices dynamically as λ evolves with consumer neuro‑responses.

Finally, the profit‑margin effects of behavior‑elastic pricing are amplified when the behavioral cues are integrated into real‑time pricing engines. Studies that couple EEG gamma‑band activity with instantaneous price adjustments report forecast‑error reductions of ≈ 15 % and corresponding profit uplifts of 12–36 % relative to traditional survey‑based elasticity inputs [27]. This dynamic capability ensures that λ and the associated profit‑revenue trade‑off are continuously recalibrated, preventing drift into sub‑optimal regions as consumer preferences shift.

In sum, quantitative evidence demonstrates that behavior‑elastic demand modeling can raise profits by single‑digit percentages in modest settings, achieve double‑digit improvements when rich neuro‑signals guide pricing, and deliver double‑digit to multi‑digit gains in highly collaborative or highly substitutable markets. The λ trade‑off metric serves as the analytical bridge linking neuro‑derived demand behavior to concrete profit and margin outcomes, allowing firms to move beyond the static MR = MC rule of classic price‑elasticity theory.

Having quantified these profit and margin impacts, the next section will explore how managers can operationalize behavior‑elastic insights within pricing processes and implementation frameworks.

5.2. Managerial Decision‑Making and Implementation¶

Integrating neuro‑physiological data into pricing workflows demands a disciplined managerial program that aligns technical execution with rigorous ethical and regulatory safeguards. The following guidelines translate the scholarly recommendations into actionable steps for pricing teams, while explicitly addressing the operational constraints that arise from handling biometric information.

Strategic and ethical foundation – Before any data collection begins, firms should adopt a multi‑framework ethical lens that combines consequence‑based, duty‑based, and virtue‑based assessments to evaluate the legitimacy of neuro‑driven pricing actions [66]. The SPED quadrant model further helps to map a specific initiative onto the appropriate privacy‑surveillance context (e.g., high‑surveillance/high‑privacy projects require dynamic informed‑consent mechanisms and strong rule‑based safeguards) [66]. Compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is mandatory; this entails explicit, granular consent, data‑minimisation, purpose limitation, and the right to withdraw at any time [12]. Complementary guidance calls for documented data‑access policies, audit trails, and periodic privacy‑impact assessments to satisfy both GDPR and emerging jurisdictional requirements [6][74].

Research design and data acquisition – Pricing‑focused research objectives must be articulated as SMART hypotheses that link price manipulations to neural correlates of valuation (e.g., “price increase from $X to $Y elicits a measurable change in ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity”) [3]. Participant recruitment should ensure demographic representativeness and obtain informed consent that clearly states the commercial purpose of the neuro‑measurements [3][16]. Experimental protocols should incorporate best‑practice controls: randomisation of price levels and ancillary attributes, inclusion of neutral control conditions, counterbalancing of stimulus order, and within‑subject repeated‑measures designs to maximise statistical power while limiting required sample sizes (≈ 30 participants for eye‑tracking, ≥ 20 participants for EEG when ≥ 16 artefact‑free trials per condition) [64][73]. High‑throughput neurotechnology (e.g., Neuropixels probes, multi‑thousand‑channel ECoG grids) and FAIR‑compliant data pipelines (Neurodata Without Borders format, open repositories such as DANDI or OpenNeuro) should be employed to ensure interoperability and reproducibility [32][40].

Pre‑processing and feature engineering – Raw recordings must undergo rigorous artefact removal (e.g., ICA for EEG, motion correction for fMRI) and standardisation (spatial/temporal normalisation, band‑pass filtering) before feature extraction [16]. Multimodal fusion techniques should align imaging, electrophysiology, and behavioural streams into a common feature space, optionally augmenting scarce data with high‑fidelity synthetic neuro‑data generated by generative adversarial networks [16]. All derived features (e.g., ΔBOLD amplitudes, ERP peak amplitudes, gamma‑band power, fixation duration, pupil dilation) should be stored in version‑controlled repositories with full provenance metadata to support downstream auditing [32][40].

Model selection, explainability and integration – Model architecture must match the modality: convolutional neural networks for spatial fMRI features, recurrent or temporal‑convolutional networks for EEG time series, and transformer‑based multimodal models for combined streams [16]. Explainable‑AI tools (saliency maps, SHAP values, concept activation vectors) are required to surface which neural patterns drive elasticity predictions, thereby mitigating “black‑box” concerns and satisfying transparency obligations [6][16]. Elasticity modifiers derived from neural features should be injected into existing econometric or machine‑learning pricing engines as scalar adjustments to classic price‑elasticity parameters [16]. A hierarchical Bayesian framework or DEA‑style contextual‑variable correction can be used to estimate unit‑specific elasticity corrections while preserving interpretability [48][68].

Validation, field testing and performance monitoring – Prior to production deployment, models must be validated through k‑fold cross‑validation and hold‑out field experiments (A/B tests) that quantify revenue uplift and convert any profit improvement into profit‑margin percentages using a consistent marginal‑cost baseline [16][64]. Continuous monitoring pipelines should track prediction error, bias drift, and compliance metrics; periodic bias audits (e.g., fairness across demographic groups) are essential to prevent discriminatory pricing outcomes [6][66]. Model drift detection and retraining schedules must be documented in the governance framework to ensure that neuro‑derived elasticity estimates remain aligned with evolving consumer behaviour [51].

Governance, ethics and compliance infrastructure – A dedicated data‑ethics officer or cross‑functional ethics board should review all neuro‑data projects, approve dynamic consent forms, and oversee the implementation of privacy‑by‑design controls (encryption at rest and in transit, role‑based access, pseudonymisation, differential privacy for aggregated analyses) [12][74]. Transparency reports summarising data sources, model performance, and ethical risk assessments must be published on a regular cadence to maintain stakeholder trust [6][66]. Audit trails documenting every data‑access event, model‑training run, and pricing decision enable accountability and facilitate regulatory inspections [74]. Finally, organizations should establish clear procedures for handling incidental findings, data‑subject rights requests (access, rectification, erasure), and cross‑border data transfers in accordance with GDPR adequacy mechanisms [12][74].

Practical implementation checklist

• ☐ Conduct an ethical pre‑check (SPED quadrant classification, multi‑lens assessment) and obtain tiered, revocable consent [12][66]
• ☐ Design a controlled experiment with randomised price levels, neutral controls, and counterbalanced order [73]
• ☐ Acquire neuro‑data using FAIR‑compliant pipelines (NWB format, secure cloud storage) [32][40]
• ☐ Apply artefact removal, multimodal fusion, and generate elasticity‑modifier features (ΔBOLD, ERP amplitudes, fixation metrics) [16]
• ☐ Select modality‑appropriate models (CNN, RNN, transformer) and embed XAI explanations [6][16]
• ☐ Integrate neural modifiers into the pricing engine via hierarchical Bayesian or DEA contextual‑variable adjustment [48][68]
• ☐ Validate with k‑fold cross‑validation and field A/B tests; convert profit gains to margin percentages using a consistent MC baseline [16][64]
• ☐ Implement continuous monitoring, bias audits, and model‑drift alerts [51]
• ☐ Maintain governance artifacts (ROPA, audit logs, transparency reports) and conduct regular ethics‑board reviews [66][74]

Summary of implementation phases

By following this structured programme, pricing managers can convert neuro‑derived demand signals into robust behavior‑elastic elasticity estimates, embed them safely within existing pricing engines, and realise the revenue and profit enhancements documented in the empirical literature—all while upholding the highest standards of consumer privacy, fairness, and regulatory compliance.

Having outlined the managerial workflow and governance requirements, the next section will synthesize the overall findings and suggest directions for future research.

6. Conclusion¶

The present report has demonstrated that replacing conventional price‑elastic demand curves with behavior‑elastic demand functions derived from neuro‑marketing measurements fundamentally reshapes optimal‑pricing theory. By grounding elasticity in neural valuation signals—such as BOLD responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum that scale linearly with price changes [29]—the resulting demand curves capture latent consumer preferences that are invisible to observed price‑quantity data alone [25][62]. This shift yields a richer elasticity surface and introduces the λ trade‑off metric, which explicitly quantifies the joint impact of profit and revenue variations generated by neuro‑derived demand (λ = Δπ/ΔR) [41].

Methodologically, the integration of neuro‑physiological data follows a disciplined pipeline. Weighted‑regression estimators accommodate heterogeneous observation reliability [47]; deconvolution‑based regression isolates price‑specific neural events in rapid stimulus sequences [7]; and multimodal feature extraction feeds supervised‑learning models—gradient‑boosted trees, convolutional networks, and transformer architectures—capable of mapping high‑dimensional neural descriptors to elasticity parameters [19][39]. The λ metric is then embedded within the marginal‑revenue condition, replacing the classic MR = MC rule and enabling simultaneous optimization of profit margins and revenue growth [41].

Empirical evidence across diverse settings confirms the economic promise of behavior‑elastic pricing. Field experiments that incorporated EEG‑based valuation into price optimization reported profit uplifts of 36.4 % relative to traditional survey‑based forecasts, far exceeding the 12.1 % gain from the latter approach [27]. Additional case studies have documented single‑digit to multi‑digit improvements: a salvage‑value newsvendor experiment showed a significant indirect price‑quantity effect on profit [33]; eye‑tracking and facial EMG metrics identified affect‑driven elasticity adjustments that enhanced ancillary revenue in cosmetics trials [57]; negative framing in supplier evaluation reduced purchase likelihood, illustrating the need to correct for attentional bias [54]; transparency of supplier response times increased channel profit by approximately 5 % while leaving supplier profit unchanged [38]; overlapping price‑range algorithms in self‑storage lifted conversion rates by 52–55 % and generated higher final transaction values [63]; and stochastic behavior‑elastic models in demand‑response programs reduced peak demand by 15 % and improved load‑factor metrics by 47 % [61]. Collectively, these findings illustrate that neuro‑derived elasticity can translate into substantive profit and margin enhancements when embedded in real‑time pricing engines.

Despite these advances, several research gaps persist. First, the majority of demonstrations remain confined to controlled laboratory or limited‑scale field pilots; large‑scale, longitudinal deployments that assess durability of neural elasticity over product life cycles are scarce. Second, the scalability of multimodal neuro‑data acquisition—particularly in high‑throughput commercial environments—poses technical and cost challenges that have yet to be fully resolved. Third, cross‑cultural validation of neural valuation signals is limited, raising questions about the generalizability of behavior‑elastic models across diverse consumer populations. Fourth, while ethical and privacy frameworks have been articulated, operational guidance for integrating dynamic consent, differential‑privacy safeguards, and auditability into production pricing systems remains nascent [6][66].

Future research should therefore pursue (i) longitudinal, multi‑site field experiments that track the stability of neuro‑derived elasticity and its welfare implications over time; (ii) hybrid modeling approaches that combine classic price‑elastic estimates with behavior‑elastic adjustments, enabling gradual adoption while preserving interpretability; (iii) privacy‑preserving analytics such as federated learning and differential privacy to reconcile the granularity of neural data with stringent GDPR, CCPA, and emerging neurorights regulations [18][2][12][26][59]; (iv) the development of open‑source, FAIR‑compliant toolkits for neuro‑data preprocessing, feature extraction, and elasticity estimation, fostering reproducibility and lowering entry barriers for practitioners [32][40]; and (v) interdisciplinary policy studies that harmonize regulatory standards, ethical oversight mechanisms, and industry best practices to ensure responsible deployment of neuro‑informed pricing strategies [66][74].

In sum, the convergence of neuromarketing measurement, advanced statistical learning, and rigorous ethical governance offers a compelling pathway to refine pricing theory beyond static elasticity. By embracing behavior‑elastic demand, researchers and practitioners can achieve more accurate demand forecasts, unlock hidden revenue potential, and navigate the evolving legal landscape governing biometric data—thereby advancing both scientific understanding and commercial practice.

References¶

1. A Guideline for Ethical Aspects in Conducting Neuromarketing Studies. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45609-6_4 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
2. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
3. Revolutionizing consumer insights: the impact of fMRI in neuromarketing research - Future Business Journal. Available at: https://fbj.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43093-024-00371-z (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379566305_Neuromarketing_algorithms'_consumer_privacy_and_ethical_considerations_challenges_and_opportunities. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379566305_Neuromarketing_algorithms'_consumer_privacy_and_ethical_considerations_challenges_and_opportunities (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698917300309. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698917300309 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
7. Regression-based analysis of combined EEG and eye-tracking data: Theory and applications. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7804566/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
8. Electroencephalography in consumer behaviour and marketing: a science mapping approach. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01991-6 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
9. FTC Biometric Data Policy Statement. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/transactional/ftc-biometric-data-policy-statement-2024-11-01/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
10. The applied principles of EEG analysis methods in neuroscience and clinical neurology - Military Medical Research. Available at: https://mmrjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40779-023-00502-7 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
11. A systematic review on EEG-based neuromarketing: recent trends and analyzing techniques - Brain Informatics. Available at: https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-024-00229-8 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
12. 2020 Volume 3 Practical Data Security and Privacy for GDPR and CCPA. Available at: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2020/volume-3/practical-data-security-and-privacy-for-gdpr-and-ccpa (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
13. Hyun Soo Ahn, Eren Çetinkaya, Izak Duenyas, Mengzhenyu Zhang. (2024). Benefits of Collaboration on Capacity Investment and Allocation. Production and Operations Management.
14. Christopher Amaral, Ceren Kolsarici, Mikhail Nediak. (2024). Optimizing Pricing Delegation to External Sales Forces via Commissions: An Empirical Investigation. Production and Operations Management.
15. Effect of the Use of Different Acoustic Stimuli on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials and Autonomic Cardiac Modulation. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6008752/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
16. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/2/550. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/2/550 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
17. Introduction. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01655/xml/nlm (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
18. https://secureprivacy.ai/blog/mastering-privacy-by-design-guide. Available at: https://secureprivacy.ai/blog/mastering-privacy-by-design-guide (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
19. A Comprehensive Review of Deep Learning: Architectures, Recent Advances, and Applications. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/15/12/755 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718713001008. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718713001008 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
21. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Available at: https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/counterbalancing (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
22. Nughthoh Arfawi Kurdhi, Shaunak S. Dabadghao, Jan C. Fransoo. (2023). Revenue management in a refurbishing duopoly with cannibalization. Journal of Operations Management.
23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372103091_Cross-Sectional_Differences_in_Hotel_Revenue_Performance_During_the_Covid-19_Pandemic. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372103091_Cross-Sectional_Differences_in_Hotel_Revenue_Performance_During_the_Covid-19_Pandemic (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003225. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003225 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
25. The neurophysiological Behavioral Perspective Model of consumer choice and its contribution to the intentional behaviorist research programme. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10427341/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
26. Unlocking Neural Privacy: The Legal and Ethical Frontiers of Neural Data. Available at: https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-03-13-unlocking-neural-privacy-the-legal-and-ethical-frontiers-of-neural-data (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
27. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711610. Available at: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711610 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
28. Assessing Consumer Attention and Arousal Using Eye-Tracking Technology in Virtual Retail Environment. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665658/full (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811913002188. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811913002188 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/galvanic-skin-response. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/galvanic-skin-response (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
31. Catherine Cleophas, Claudia Schüetze. (2024). Decision biases in revenue management revisited: Dynamic decision-making under stationary and nonstationary demand. Decision Sciences.
32. Open Data In Neurophysiology: Advancements, Solutions & Challenges. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11247910/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
33. Han Kyul Oh, Huseyn Abdulla, Rogelio Oliva. (2024). Behavioral multi-lever decision-making: A study of consumer return policy, price, and inventory decisions. Journal of Operations Management.
34. GDPR in practice – Experiences of data protection authorities. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2024/gdpr-experiences-data-protection-authorities (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
35. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14707853221112622. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14707853221112622 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
36. The Ethics of Neuromarketing: A Rapid Review. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-025-09591-8 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
37. Informed consent. Available at: https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/resources/consent (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
38. Fadong Chen, Yingshuai Zhao, Ulrich Thonemann. (2023). The Value of Response Time Information in Supply Chain Bargaining. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management.
39. Top 12 Dimensionality Reduction Techniques for Machine Learning. Available at: https://encord.com/blog/dimentionality-reduction-techniques-machine-learning/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
40. Open Data In Neurophysiology: Advancements, Solutions & Challenges. Available at: https://arxiv.org/html/2407.00976v1 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
41. Modeling Price Elasticity for an Optimized Pricing Strategy. Available at: https://revionics.com/blog/modeling-price-elasticity-for-an-optimized-pricing-strategy (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2017.1320858. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2017.1320858 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
43. Privacy Law Recap 2024: Regulatory Enforcement. Available at: https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/privacy-law-recap-2024-regulatory-enforcement (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
44. Visual, Auditory, and Cross Modal Sensory Processing in Adults with Autism: An EEG Power and BOLD fMRI Investigation. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00167/full (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
45. FMRI Visualization of Brain Activity during a Monetary Incentive Delay Task - ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811900905937 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
46. Counterbalancing for serial order carryover effects in experimental condition orders. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22799624/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
47. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/6/2282. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/6/2282 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
48. Mohsen Afsharian, Sara Kamali, Heinz Ahn, Peter Bogetoft. (2024). Individualized second stage corrections in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research.
49. Computing Emotion Awareness Through Galvanic Skin Response and Facial Electromyography. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6593-4_14 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
50. Protecting sensitive data with encryption and access controls. Available at: https://lumenalta.com/insights/9-examples-of-data-privacy (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
51. A systematic review of the prediction of consumer preference using EEG measures and machine-learning in neuromarketing research - Brain Informatics. Available at: https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-022-00175-3 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
52. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ejm-12-2016-0805/full/html. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ejm-12-2016-0805/full/html (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304393219301138. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304393219301138 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
54. Ricky S. Wong. (2020). An Alternative Explanation for Attribute Framing and Spillover Effects in Multidimensional Supplier Evaluation and Supplier Termination: Focusing on Asymmetries in Attention. Decision Sciences.
55. https://hbr.org/2002/09/pricing-and-the-psychology-of-consumption. Available at: https://hbr.org/2002/09/pricing-and-the-psychology-of-consumption (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
56. How Many Trials Does It Take to Get a Significant ERP Effect? It Depends. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5940511/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
57. The Influence of Price on Purchase Intentions: Comparative Study between Cognitive, Sensory, and Neurophysiological Experiments. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7911682/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
58. Micro-Randomized Trials: An Experimental Design for Developing Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732571/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
59. New GDPR Report Highlights Rising Enforcement and Data Protection Hurdles. Available at: https://secuvy.ai/blog/new-gdpr-report-highlights-rising-enforcement-and-data-protection-hurdles/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
60. Similar sound intensity dependence of the N1 and P2 components of the auditory ERP: Averaged and single trial evidence - ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1388245715006707 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352467723002527. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352467723002527 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322008360. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322008360 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
63. Atabak Mehrdar, Ting Li. (2023). Should price cannibalization be avoided or embraced? A multimethod investigation. Production and Operations Management.
64. Does eye-tracking have an effect on economic behavior?. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8341649/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
65. Galvanic Skin Response (GSR): The Complete Pocket Guide. Available at: https://imotions.com/blog/learning/research-fundamentals/galvanic-skin-response/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
66. Daniel J. Power, Ciara Heavin, Yvonne O’Connor. (2021). Balancing privacy rights and surveillance analytics: a decision process guide. Journal of Business Analytics.
67. Utsav Sadana, Abhilash Chenreddy, Erick Delage, Alexandre Forel, Emma Frejinger, Thibaut Vidal. (2025). A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research.
68. Ibrahim Abada, Xavier Lambin, Nikolay Tchakarov. (2024). Collusion by mistake: Does algorithmic sophistication drive supra-competitive profits?. European Journal of Operational Research.
69. Impact of Pricing and Product Information on Consumer Buying Behavior With Customer Satisfaction in a Mediating Role. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720151/full (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811904000977. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811904000977 (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
71. Matthew J. Hashim, Jesse C. Bockstedt. (2024). REAL-EFFORT INCENTIVES IN ONLINE LABOR MARKETS: PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. MIS Quarterly.
72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382121643_Revolutionizing_consumer_insights_the_impact_of_fMRI_in_neuromarketing_research. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382121643_Revolutionizing_consumer_insights_the_impact_of_fMRI_in_neuromarketing_research (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
73. https://cxl.com/blog/neuromarketing-research/. Available at: https://cxl.com/blog/neuromarketing-research/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)
74. The role of ethics in data governance of large neuro-ICT projects. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077829/ (Accessed: August 27, 2025)