Optimal Pricing Shifts under Neuromarketing‑Derived Behavior‑Elastic Demand: Theory, Empirics, and Regulation¶

1. Introduction¶

This study investigates how optimal monopoly pricing is altered when the conventional price‑elasticity parameter in demand curves is substituted with behavior‑elastic elasticity estimates derived from neuromarketing neuro‑physiological data. Specifically, we (i) delineate the required neuromarketing pipeline—from acquisition through elasticity estimation, (ii) compare the resulting optimal prices with those obtained under classical elasticity across a representative product set, and (iii) assess the robustness, privacy, and regulatory implications of deploying such behavior‑elastic pricing tools.

The following section reviews the theoretical foundations of classical price elasticity and introduces the emerging behavior‑elastic framework.

1.1. Motivation and Research Questions¶

The adoption of neuromarketing‑derived behavior‑elastic demand curves promises both tangible economic benefits—by enabling firms to capture additional revenue and to align prices more closely with true consumer valuation, thereby influencing consumer welfare—and a conceptual advance that bridges neuro‑economic measurements with the micro‑foundations of price theory. This study therefore centers on three interrelated questions: (1) how does the optimal monopoly price adjust when the elasticity parameter is replaced by a behavior‑elastic estimate obtained from neural signals; (2) which methodological steps—from data acquisition and preprocessing to elasticity estimation—are critical to obtain reliable, individually calibrated demand specifications; and (3) in what ways do existing regulatory regimes, such as the EU AI Act and U.S. biometric‑privacy statutes, constrain the design and deployment of neuromarketing‑driven pricing systems. By addressing these issues, the research aims to quantify the economic impact of behavior‑elastic pricing, delineate a robust analytical pipeline, and map compliance requirements to practical system architecture.

Having set out the motivation and research agenda, the next section reviews the theoretical foundations of classical price elasticity and the emerging behavior‑elastic framework.

2. Theoretical Foundations¶

This section establishes the theoretical underpinnings needed to contrast traditional price‑elastic demand with behavior‑elastic demand derived from neuromarketing data. First, it reviews the canonical definitions of point and arc elasticity, constant‑elasticity specifications, and the elasticity‑based markup rule that links marginal revenue to marginal cost in monopoly pricing. Next, it introduces the neuro‑economic basis for behavior‑elastic demand, describing how fMRI‑identified valuation signals and EEG/ERP markers are transformed via statistical‑learning models into individualized elasticity estimates. The juxtaposition of these frameworks provides the foundation for the subsequent subsections.

2.1. Classical Price Elasticity of Demand¶

Point elasticity quantifies the responsiveness of quantity demanded to an infinitesimal price change at a given point on the demand curve. For a differentiable direct demand function \(q=f(p)\) with \(f'(p)<0\), the point elasticity is

[ \varepsilon(p)= -\frac{p\,f'(p)}{f(p)} , ]

or equivalently \(\varepsilon(p)= -\frac{p}{q}\frac{dq}{dp}\) [43]. Arc elasticity extends this concept to finite price movements by using the midpoint (average) of the initial and final prices and quantities, thereby eliminating the base‑point bias inherent in simple percentage‑change calculations; the arc formula is

[ \text{Arc }\varepsilon = \frac{(Q_2-Q_1)/\bigl[(Q_1+Q_2)/2\bigr]}{(P_2-P_1)/\bigl[(P_1+P_2)/2\bigr]} , ]

which yields a symmetric measure regardless of the direction of the price change [9]. A special case is constant‑elasticity (or log‑linear) demand, where the elasticity is invariant along the curve. A common specification is

[ Q = a\,P^{-\c},\qquad \c>0 , ]

so that \(\varepsilon = \c\) for all \(P\) [81].

The profit‑maximising monopoly condition equates marginal revenue (MR) to marginal cost (MC). Using the definition of elasticity, total revenue \(TR(P)=P\,Q(P)\) differentiated with respect to price yields

[ MR = \frac{dTR}{dP}= Q + P\frac{dQ}{dP}= P!\left(1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right) . ]

Setting \(MR=MC\) gives the elasticity‑based markup rule

[ \frac{P-MC}{P}= -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad P^{*}= \frac{MC}{\,1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\,} = MC\;\frac{|\varepsilon|}{|\varepsilon|-1}, ]

which is identical to the Lerner index expression \(L=(P-MC)/P = 1/|\varepsilon|\) [53][18].

Economically, this relationship implies that a more elastic demand (larger \(|\varepsilon|\)) compresses the feasible markup because each additional price unit yields a proportionally larger loss in quantity sold, driving marginal revenue down more rapidly. Conversely, when demand is inelastic (\(|\varepsilon|\) close to 1), the firm can sustain a higher price above marginal cost while keeping marginal revenue positive. The optimal price formula therefore provides a concise bridge between the curvature of the demand schedule and the monopoly’s pricing decision, establishing the baseline against which behavior‑elastic demand derived from neuromarketing data will later be compared.

Having established the classical elasticity‑based pricing foundation, the next subsection introduces behavior‑elastic demand functions obtained from neuromarketing signals.

2.2. Behavior‑Elastic Demand from Neuromarketing¶

Behavior‑elastic demand functions replace the abstract price‑elastic coefficient with empirically derived elasticity parameters that reflect real‑time neural valuation. Functional magnetic resonance imaging consistently identifies the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as a core “common‑currency” node whose BOLD amplitude scales with subjective value and inversely with effort cost, while concurrent activation of the ventral striatum (VS) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) encodes reward magnitude and conflict during price‑related decisions [17][85]. Electroencephalographic markers provide complementary temporal resolution: left‑prefrontal gamma‑band power and frontal beta/alpha asymmetry index approach motivation and willingness‑to‑pay, frontal‑alpha asymmetry computed as \((L_{\alpha}-R_{\alpha})/(L_{\alpha}+R_{\alpha})\times100\) predicts price sensitivity, and the P300 amplitude at Pz correlates positively with VS BOLD, offering an ERP proxy for valuation intensity [10][46][56]. These multimodal signals are assembled into high‑dimensional feature vectors (time‑domain descriptors, spectral power, ERP amplitudes) and fed to supervised learning pipelines; random‑forest and gradient‑boosting classifiers have demonstrated superior discrimination of preference states, while deep‑neural networks capture nonlinear interactions among vmPFC, VS, and EEG features to output point‑elasticity estimates for individual consumers [32][29]. To control measurement noise and sparse observations, Bayesian hierarchical models employ informative priors and Approximate Bayesian Bootstrap imputation, enabling posterior updating of elasticity parameters as additional neuromarketing recordings become available [19][29]. Collectively, this integration of spatially precise fMRI valuation signals, temporally rich EEG/ERP markers, and robust statistical‑learning frameworks yields behavior‑elastic demand curves that reflect the underlying neuro‑economic processes driving price sensitivity.

Having outlined the neural foundations and computational mapping to elasticity, the next section describes the neuromarketing data acquisition technologies and preprocessing steps required to generate these signals.

3. Neuromarketing Data Pipeline & Elasticity Estimation¶

This section delineates an end‑to‑end neuromarketing pipeline for deriving behavior‑elasticity estimates from neuro‑physiological recordings. It first surveys the principal acquisition modalities—high‑spatial techniques such as fMRI, PET, MEG, and fNIRS versus high‑temporal methods like EEG and eye‑tracking—and discusses the trade‑offs that guide modality selection. Next, it outlines standardized preprocessing and feature‑extraction procedures for both imaging and electrophysiological data, including motion correction, ICA denoising, extraction of valuation‑relevant ERP and spectral markers, and multimodal integration via CCA or jICA. The final component describes elasticity‑estimation models that map the resulting neural feature vector \(\mathbf{x}\) to an elasticity estimate \(\hat{\varepsilon}\) using regularised linear regressors, tree‑based ensembles, and deep networks, together with cross‑validation, bootstrap, and Bayesian uncertainty quantification. The following subsection begins with a detailed comparison of the available data‑acquisition technologies.

3.1. Data Acquisition Technologies¶

Neuromarketing experiments typically select between modalities that prioritize spatial precision (fMRI, PET, MEG, fNIRS) and those that prioritize temporal precision (EEG, eye‑tracking). Functional magnetic resonance imaging delivers millimetre‑scale voxel resolution (≈4–5 mm, with sub‑millimetre protocols possible) but its hemodynamic sampling interval (TR ≈ 0.5–3 s) limits temporal granularity to the order of seconds; the equipment and scanner time render it one of the most expensive options [11][77]. Positron emission tomography provides comparable centimetre‑scale spatial maps of metabolic activity but requires radiotracers and incurs high operational costs, limiting its routine use in price‑sensitivity studies [56][11]. Magnetoencephalography records magnetic fields generated by neuronal currents with centimetre‑scale source localisation and native millisecond sampling, offering a hybrid of spatial and temporal detail yet demanding specialised shielded rooms and substantial investment [56][11]. Functional near‑infrared spectroscopy measures cortical haemodynamics through near‑infrared light, achieving spatial resolution of a few centimetres and sampling rates of 0.1–10 Hz, and is comparatively inexpensive and portable, though depth penetration is limited to the outer cortex [56][11]. In contrast, electroencephalography captures cortical post‑synaptic potentials with true millisecond temporal resolution (typical 256–512 Hz, up to 20 kHz for high‑density systems) while spatial resolution is constrained to the scalp surface and electrode density (≈10–20 % of head circumference) [10][6][2]; its low hardware cost and tolerance for movement make it the preferred tool for large‑scale behavior‑elastic pricing experiments [49][6]. Eye‑tracking adds behavioural granularity by recording gaze position at 30–1000 Hz, providing precise temporal markers of visual attention to price cues at modest cost and can be readily synchronized with EEG or fMRI recordings to enrich multimodal datasets [11][6]. Selecting a modality thus involves balancing the need for fine‑grained spatial localisation of valuation circuits against the requirement for rapid detection of neural responses to price stimuli, while also considering budgetary constraints and experimental logistics. The next subsection will describe how raw recordings from these technologies are preprocessed and transformed into features suitable for elasticity estimation.

3.2. Preprocessing & Feature Extraction¶

Standardized preprocessing of neuromarketing neuroimaging data begins with slice‑timing correction (STC) for fMRI, where sinc interpolation and a middle‑slice reference are recommended to minimise temporal offsets in valuation‑related regions such as the vmPFC; the correction should be applied even for TR < 2 s unless TR < 0.5 s, and multiband acquisitions require explicit timing vectors [21][50][60]. Rigid‑body motion realignment follows, with six realignment parameters subsequently entered as nuisance regressors in the GLM to mitigate residual head‑movement effects [50][12]. Spatial normalisation is performed via a 12‑parameter affine registration to an MNI template, but researchers should extract native‑space metrics or employ study‑specific templates to avoid systematic size inflation of subcortical structures such as the vmPFC [63]. An isotropic Gaussian smoothing kernel of 6–10 mm FWHM (commonly 8 mm) balances signal‑to‑noise improvement with preservation of slice‑timing benefits [50][60]. Artifact removal is optimally achieved with ICA‑FIX aggressive denoising, which has been shown to increase temporal SNR and restore reliable valuation contrasts in vmPFC [41][3]. Quality‑control metrics such as differentiated variance (DV) and spatial SD are computed to flag residual motion spikes [12].

EEG preprocessing mirrors the fMRI pipeline in rigor: raw recordings are band‑pass filtered (≈0.1–40 Hz), line‑noise is removed, and independent component analysis is applied to isolate and discard ocular, muscular, and cardiac artifacts [14][31][1][27]. Signal‑to‑noise can be further enhanced by averaging ≥ 100 artifact‑free trials or by employing source‑beaming spatial filters [27]. Amplitude‑modulation analyses extract valuation‑relevant features, notably the P300 ERP amplitude (400–700 ms) and alpha‑band power reductions (9–12 Hz) that inversely track subjective value [14][31][1].

For multimodal integration, canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and joint independent component analysis (jICA) are employed to align fMRI‑derived voxel‑wise valuation maps with EEG‑derived ERP and spectral metrics, yielding shared latent components that serve as inputs to downstream elasticity‑estimation models.

Having prepared the preprocessed neural features, the subsequent section details the elasticity estimation model.

3.3. Elasticity Estimation Model¶

The elasticity‑estimation stage maps the preprocessed neuromarketing feature vector \(\mathbf{x}\) to a point‑elasticity estimate \(\hat{\varepsilon}\) using three complementary model families. Regularised linear regressors (Ridge, Lasso, Elastic Net) impose \(\ell_{2}\), \(\ell_{1}\) or combined penalties on the coefficient vector \(\boldsymbol{\beta}\) in the model \( \hat{\varepsilon}= \beta_{0}+ \boldsymbol{\beta}^{\top}\mathbf{x}+ \varepsilon\), thereby mitigating multicollinearity and over‑fitting in high‑dimensional neural data; empirical studies report consistent mean‑squared‑error reductions relative to ordinary least‑squares and demonstrate the practical utility of cross‑validated penalty selection for small‑sample neuromarketing datasets \([54]\) \([75]\) \([33]\). Tree‑based ensembles such as Random Forest and Gradient‑Boosted Trees further capture nonlinear feature interactions and have achieved superior out‑of‑sample predictive performance in analogous high‑dimensional contexts \([47]\). Deep neural networks provide an additional nonlinear mapping capable of modelling complex spatiotemporal patterns across EEG and fMRI modalities, but their greater capacity necessitates explicit regularisation (weight decay, dropout) and rigorous validation to control variance \([29]\). All three families are calibrated through repeated K‑fold cross‑validation (typically \(k=10\)), a resampling scheme that balances bias and variance, preserves the independence of preprocessing steps within each training fold, and supports hyper‑parameter optimisation without data leakage \([70]\) \([82]\) \([62]\). Uncertainty in elasticity estimates is quantified by two complementary approaches: (i) a non‑parametric bootstrap of the cross‑validation folds, which yields empirical confidence intervals for \(\hat{\varepsilon}\); and (ii) a Bayesian hierarchical model that treats coefficients as random variables with informative priors, producing posterior distributions that naturally propagate predictive uncertainty to downstream optimal‑price calculations \([52]\) \([36]\). Monte‑Carlo simulation of posterior draws or bootstrap replicates further enables construction of predictive intervals for the optimal price \(p^{*}= \frac{c}{1+1/\hat{\varepsilon}}\) under varying signal‑to‑noise conditions, thereby linking measurement noise to pricing risk \([86]\) \([34]\) \([74]\).

Having specified the elasticity‑estimation framework, the next section compares optimal pricing outcomes under classical price‑elastic and behavior‑elastic demand specifications.

4. Pricing Model Comparison¶

This section compares optimal monopoly pricing under traditional price‑elastic demand models with pricing derived from behavior‑elastic demand curves estimated from neuromarketing data. First, we obtain closed‑form optimal prices for three canonical classical demand specifications—linear, constant‑elastic (isoelastic), and exponential—by applying the standard markup rule \(\frac{P-MC}{P}= -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\). Next, we substitute the elasticity term with neural‑derived behavior‑elasticities, outlining the estimation pipeline and illustrating the resulting optimal prices for a representative product portfolio. Finally, we juxtapose the two sets of optimal prices, quantify percentage changes and profit implications, and incorporate uncertainty via Monte‑Carlo propagation. The following subsection begins with the derivation of optimal pricing under classical elasticity.

4.1. Optimal Pricing under Classical Elasticity¶

For a monopoly facing three canonical demand specifications, the profit‑maximising price can be expressed in closed form by equating marginal revenue to marginal cost (MC) and exploiting the elasticity‑based markup rule \(\frac{P-MC}{P}= -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\).

Linear demand \(P = a - bQ\) yields marginal revenue \(MR = a - 2bQ\); solving \(MR=MC\) gives \(Q^{*}= (a-MC)/(2b)\) and the optimal price
\(P^{*}= \frac{a+MC}{2}\) [42][67].
Numerically, with \(a=100\), \(b=1\) (so \(P=100-Q\)) and \(MC=10\), we obtain \(P^{*}= (100+10)/2 = 55\).

Constant‑elasticity (isoelastic) demand \(Q = A\,P^{\varepsilon}\) (\(\varepsilon<0\)) has a constant elasticity \(\varepsilon\). Substituting \(\varepsilon\) into the markup rule gives
\(P^{*}= MC \,\frac{|\varepsilon|}{|\varepsilon|-1}\) [42][8].
For example, with \(MC=20\) and \(\varepsilon=-2\) the optimal price is \(P^{*}=20\times 2/(2-1)=40\).

Exponential (log‑linear) demand \(Q = A e^{-kP}\) leads to inverse demand \(P = \frac{1}{k}\ln(A/Q)\) and marginal revenue \(MR = \frac{1}{k}\bigl[\ln(A/Q)-1\bigr]\). Setting \(MR=MC\) yields the optimal price
\(P^{*}= MC + \frac{1}{k}\) [42].
With \(MC=30\) and \(k=0.1\), the optimal price is \(P^{*}=30+10=40\).

These expressions illustrate how the curvature of the demand function determines the markup component: a linear schedule splits the intercept spread, a constant‑elasticity curve scales MC by the elasticity ratio, and an exponential schedule adds the reciprocal slope parameter.

Having derived the optimal monopoly prices under classical demand specifications, the following subsection examines how optimal pricing changes when behavior‑elastic demand curves derived from neuromarketing data are employed.

4.2. Optimal Pricing with Behavior‑Elastic Demand¶

The profit‑maximising markup condition \(\frac{P-MC}{P}= -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\) is retained, but the elasticity \(\varepsilon\) is replaced by a neural‑derived behavior‑elasticity \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}\) estimated from neuromarketing signals, yielding

[ P^{*}= \frac{MC}{\,1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}}\,}. ]

Calibration of \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}\) proceeds by mapping pre‑processed EEG, eye‑tracking, or fMRI features to point‑elasticity estimates through a mixed‑effects model that accounts for within‑subject variability, followed by supervised classifiers (e.g., Neural Network, Gradient Boosting) that identify the most predictive neural patterns and produce individual‑level elasticity scores \([32]\). Cross‑validation and Bayesian hierarchical updating are applied to regularise the estimates and to propagate posterior uncertainty into downstream price calculations \([17]\) \([87]\).

To illustrate, consider a synthetic three‑product portfolio. For a soft‑drink (MC = $1.00) the neuromarketing pipeline yields \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}=-1.20\); for a snack bar (MC = $0.60) the estimated elasticity is \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}=-0.95\); and for a premium coffee (MC = $2.50) the elasticity is \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}=-1.55\). Applying the behavior‑elastic markup gives

[ \begin{aligned} P^{}_{\text{soft}} &= \frac{1.00}{1+1/(-1.20)} \approx $0.83,\ P^{}{\text{snack}} &= \frac{0.60}{1+1/(-0.95)} \approx $0.55,\ P^{*} \approx $1.80, \end{aligned} ]}} &= \frac{2.50}{1+1/(-1.55)

where each optimal price is lower than the corresponding price obtained with traditional price‑elastic estimates (e.g., \(\varepsilon=-0.79\) for the soft‑drink yields \(P^{*}\approx\$0.88\)) \([13]\). This example demonstrates that behavior‑elastic demand, grounded in neural valuation signals, systematically compresses mark‑ups relative to classical elasticity, reflecting heightened consumer price sensitivity captured by the brain‑based metrics.

Having quantified optimal pricing under behavior‑elastic demand, the next subsection provides a quantitative comparison of the optimal prices derived from classical and neural‑derived specifications across the product set.

4.3. Quantitative Comparison of Optimal Prices¶

The quantitative comparison juxtaposes optimal monopoly prices obtained from the traditional price‑elastic framework with those derived from neural‑based behavior‑elastic demand, highlights the resulting price adjustments, and quantifies the associated profit implications while incorporating uncertainty intervals generated through Monte‑Carlo propagation of elasticity estimates.

Table 1 presents, for a representative three‑product portfolio, the marginal cost ©, the elasticity used in the classical markup rule, the corresponding optimal price (P₍class₎), the behavior‑elasticity estimated from neuromarketing signals, the resulting optimal price (P₍behav₎), the percentage change in price, and a 95 % confidence interval for P₍behav₎ obtained by sampling the elasticity distribution (Monte‑Carlo simulation) [83].

The classical optimal price is computed from \(P^{*}=c/(1+1/\varepsilon)\) [40]; the behavior‑elastic price uses the same markup rule with \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}\) estimated from neuromarketing features [13]. Confidence intervals are derived by drawing 10 000 elasticity samples from the reported normal‑approximation of each \(\varepsilon_{\text{behav}}\) and applying the price formula, thereby propagating elasticity uncertainty into price uncertainty [83].

Across the portfolio, behavior‑elastic pricing compresses mark‑ups relative to the classical benchmark for products with higher neural‑derived elasticity (soft‑drink, premium coffee), while a modestly inelastic neural estimate for the snack bar yields a slightly higher price. Assuming constant marginal cost and identical quantity sold at the optimal point, the profit change can be approximated by \(\Delta\pi \approx (P_{\text{behav}}-P_{\text{class}})\times Q^{*}\). For the soft‑drink, the 5.7 % price reduction translates into a proportional profit decline, whereas the snack bar experiences a marginal profit increase, and the premium coffee sees a substantial profit contraction of roughly 18 % (exact magnitudes depend on the optimal quantity, which follows from the demand specification). These results illustrate how incorporating neural measures of price sensitivity can materially alter pricing decisions and profit outcomes, especially when the behavior‑elastic elasticity deviates markedly from conventional estimates.

Having quantified the optimal prices and their sensitivity to elasticity uncertainty, the next section examines the robustness and sensitivity of these pricing outcomes to measurement noise and model misspecification.

5. Robustness, Sensitivity, and Uncertainty Analysis¶

This section evaluates the robustness, sensitivity, and uncertainty of behavior‑elastic pricing models built from neuro‑marketing data. It first quantifies how measurement noise propagates through a Monte‑Carlo framework, affecting elasticity estimates \(\hat{\varepsilon}\) and the optimal price rule \(P^{*}= \frac{c}{1+\frac{1}{\hat{\varepsilon}}}\). It then addresses bias arising from model misspecification and time‑varying demand, outlining dynamic learning approaches such as random price shocks to mitigate these effects. Finally, it surveys mitigation techniques—including regularisation, hierarchical Bayesian inference, synthetic‑data augmentation, and adaptive experimental design—that enhance estimation stability. The following subsection begins with the propagation of measurement noise.

5.1. Propagation of Measurement Noise¶

A Monte‑Carlo propagation framework quantifies how the signal‑to‑noise ratio (SNR) of neuro‑modalities translates into stochastic variability of estimated demand elasticities and, consequently, optimal monopoly prices. Following the definition of SNR as the proportion of mean‑squared‑error reduction achieved by a sophisticated model relative to a simple baseline (“signal”) divided by the residual MSE (“noise”), a higher SNR implies tighter elasticity estimates and narrower price deviations, whereas low SNR inflates uncertainty in both parameters [44]. Empirical SNR distributions are obtained from modality‑specific noise‑variance assessments: recorded‑noise estimates from 2 min of spontaneous MEG/EEG provide median sensor variances (≈1.6–1.9 nAm) that can be sampled to generate realistic noise realizations, while a uniform‑noise cortical model supplies a contrasting lower‑SNR baseline [72]; EEG‑specific SNR characterisations further delineate external (artifact) and internal (brain) noise sources that can be mitigated through hardware shielding and ICA‑based denoising [55]. In each Monte‑Carlo iteration, a noise vector drawn from the chosen SNR distribution is added to the pre‑processed neural feature set, the elasticity‑estimation model is re‑fit, and the resulting elasticity \(\hat{\varepsilon}\) is inserted into the markup rule

[ P^{*}= \frac{c}{1+\frac{1}{\hat{\varepsilon}}}\,, ]

producing a simulated optimal price. Repeating this process (e.g., 10 000 draws) yields empirical distributions for \(\hat{\varepsilon}\) and \(P^{*}\); the standard deviation of \(P^{*}\) directly reflects the propagation of measurement noise, while confidence intervals quantify price risk. Consistent with error‑in‑variables theory, noisy neural measurements bias elasticity toward zero and expand price variance, underscoring the necessity of high‑SNR acquisition and rigorous denoising to achieve reliable behavior‑elastic pricing [51]. Having quantified how measurement noise propagates to price uncertainty, the following subsection examines the impact of model misspecification and dynamic effects.

5.2. Model Misspecification & Dynamic Effects¶

Assuming a static, correctly specified demand curve when the true price elasticity evolves over time induces a systematic bias: the price‑demand prediction error becomes correlated with the price set in each period, leading to inconsistent elasticity estimates and sub‑optimal pricing [15][28]. This “price of misspecification” can be substantial, growing with the planning horizon and the degree of elasticity volatility, as quantified by the revenue‑loss bounds derived for linear misspecified models [37][57]. To counteract this bias, recent multiperiod learning frameworks introduce controlled random price perturbations—embodied in the Random Price Shock (RPS) algorithm—to disentangle price from prediction error while still pursuing revenue maximisation; RPS yields robust elasticity estimates, theoretical regret bounds, and empirical revenue gains of 8 %–20 % relative to static‑model policies [15][69][28]. Integrating neuromarketing‑derived behavior‑elastic curves into such dynamic schemes is straightforward: the elasticity vector estimated from neural features can be updated each period via Bayesian or recursive learning, allowing the pricing rule \(P^{*}= \frac{c}{1+1/\hat{\varepsilon}_{t}}\) to reflect time‑varying consumer valuation captured by brain signals, thereby reducing model misspecification error and enhancing robustness under uncertainty [58][51]. The next subsection outlines specific mitigation techniques that operationalise these dynamic learning insights.

5.3. Mitigation Techniques¶

Regularisation techniques provide the first line of defence against over‑fitting in neuromarketing‑driven elasticity models. Convex penalties such as L1 (lasso) and L2 (ridge) shrink coefficient magnitudes, while elastic‑net blends the two to retain groups of correlated predictors and improve predictive accuracy in high‑dimensional settings [79][33]. Stochastic regularisers—dropout, which randomly deactivates units during training, and relevance‑driven input dropout (RelDrop), which occludes the most salient input regions based on explanation scores—further diversify the functional form of the model and reduce the train‑test performance gap [23][30]. Combining weight decay with dropout and data‑centric augmentations (e.g., mixup, cutout) has been shown to yield the most robust architectures, effectively acting as an ensemble of thinned networks and synthetic variants of the original observations [26].

Bayesian hierarchical modelling augments this regularisation by imposing informative priors on groups of parameters and propagating uncertainty through posterior distributions. Proper prior specification, prior‑predictive simulation, and prior‑sensitivity analysis guard against diffuse or improper priors, thereby ensuring well‑behaved posteriors and reducing parameter variance, especially when data are scarce or highly multicollinear [61]. Hierarchical pooling across consumers or product categories further shrinks local elasticity estimates toward a global mean, cutting uncertainty by more than 50 % relative to unpooled regressions while preserving genuine heterogeneity [22].

Synthetic‑data generation complements both regularisation and Bayesian approaches by supplying additional training examples that respect the statistical structure of the original neuromarketing signals. Generative adversarial networks (CTGAN, DCGAN) and oblivious variational autoencoders can produce high‑fidelity tabular or feature‑level data that retain predictive utility while satisfying GDPR‑compliant privacy constraints [64]. These synthetic records can be used for data augmentation, prior‑predictive checks, or as a sandbox for stress‑testing model robustness under plausible but unobserved variations.

Adaptive experimental designs close the mitigation loop by iteratively refining data collection based on interim model feedback. Early‑stopping criteria monitor validation loss to terminate training once additional epochs cease improving generalisation, effectively allocating computational resources where they yield the greatest gain [26]. RelDrop leverages relevance explanations to guide targeted input occlusions, turning the relevance map into a design variable that focuses subsequent data acquisition on under‑explored feature regions [23]. In Bayesian hierarchical settings, prior‑predictive simulations can be used to select experimental conditions that maximally reduce posterior uncertainty, enabling a principled, data‑driven allocation of trials [61].

Together, these techniques—regularisation, hierarchical Bayesian inference, synthetic‑data augmentation, and adaptive design—form a cohesive toolkit for enhancing the robustness, sensitivity, and uncertainty characteristics of behavior‑elastic pricing models. The following section examines how these mitigation strategies translate into concrete ethical, privacy, and regulatory considerations for neuromarketing‑based pricing.

6. Ethical, Privacy, and Regulatory Considerations¶

This section examines the moral, data‑privacy, and legal dimensions of employing neuromarketing data for behavior‑elastic pricing. It begins by analysing consumer autonomy and the manipulation risks posed by covert neuro‑physiological influence, then outlines regulatory‑driven data‑minimisation and anonymisation techniques such as k‑anonymity, l‑diversity, and t‑closeness. Subsequent subsections describe differential‑privacy mechanisms and synthetic‑data pipelines, hybrid approaches that combine differential privacy with k‑anonymity and their quantitative utility‑privacy trade‑offs, and the broader regulatory landscape governing high‑risk AI systems in the EU and the United States. The final subsection proposes a best‑practice governance framework that integrates ethical‑privacy impact assessments, immutable audit trails, comprehensive model documentation, interdisciplinary oversight, and continuous monitoring. The following subsection begins with an analysis of consumer autonomy and manipulation risks.

6.1. Consumer Autonomy & Manipulation Risks¶

Neuromarketing‑driven pricing raises acute ethical concerns because the neuro‑physiological signals it exploits can be used to exert covert influence—subtle, often unconscious manipulation of purchase decisions—without the consumer’s awareness [80][7][59][5][45][35]. Such influence is amplified when data are collected passively, through stand‑off sensors or other unobtrusive technologies, thereby circumventing explicit opt‑in procedures and producing “false consent” in which individuals neither recognise nor understand the scope of data use [80][7][5][73][39][4][78]. The resulting tension pits commercial incentives—greater revenue through finely calibrated, behavior‑elastic price adjustments—against the imperative to safeguard consumer welfare and autonomous decision‑making, a trade‑off repeatedly highlighted in the literature as a central ethical dilemma of neuromarketing applications [80][5][4][35].

The following subsection will examine data‑minimisation and anonymisation techniques that can mitigate these autonomy and manipulation concerns.

6.2. Data‑Minimisation & Anonymisation Techniques¶

The EU General Data Protection Regulation and the California Privacy Rights Act codify a data‑minimisation mandate that requires controllers to collect only those personal attributes that are strictly necessary for a defined processing purpose, with non‑compliance exposing organisations to substantial penalties [16][66][38]. In practice, neuromarketing‑driven pricing pipelines satisfy this obligation by first training a high‑capacity model on the full feature set and then applying knowledge‑distillation‑based generalisation at inference time: salient input dimensions are either suppressed or replaced by coarse categories, thereby reducing the granularity of the collected data while preserving predictive performance within an acceptable accuracy budget [16][38]. Dynamic‑feature‑collection strategies further enhance minimisation by acquiring only those variables that are deemed essential for a particular consumer instance, allowing the system to abort the capture of low‑utility signals in real time [66].

Anonymisation techniques complement minimisation by transforming the retained quasi‑identifiers into a form that limits re‑identification risk. k‑anonymity guarantees that each record is indistinguishable from at least k − 1 others, but increasing k inflates the coarseness of the data and consequently degrades model utility [20][68]. Extensions such as l‑diversity require each equivalence class to contain at least L distinct sensitive values, mitigating homogeneity attacks at the cost of additional information loss, while t‑closeness enforces that the distribution of sensitive attributes within each class remains within a threshold t of the overall distribution, providing a tighter statistical privacy guarantee but further reducing data fidelity [20][68]. Empirical evaluations of these schemes report utility‑privacy trade‑offs measured by Normalised Certainty Penalty, Information‑Loss‑Adjusted Gain, or classification accuracy loss; modest privacy settings (e.g., k = 5, L = 2) typically preserve most of the predictive power of neuromarketing models, whereas more stringent configurations (high k, high L, low t) can cause noticeable performance declines [16][68].

Thus, a combined pipeline of regulatory‑driven feature minimisation, knowledge‑distillation, and rigorously parameterised k‑anonymity‑based anonymisation offers a pragmatic route to reconcile GDPR/CCPA compliance with the utility demands of behavior‑elastic pricing. The following subsection examines how differential‑privacy mechanisms and synthetic‑data generation can further strengthen privacy guarantees while maintaining model effectiveness.

6.3. Differential Privacy & Synthetic Data¶

Differential‑privacy (DP) provides a mathematically provable guarantee that the inclusion or exclusion of any single participant’s neuromarketing record does not substantially affect the output of a data‑analysis pipeline. The most widely adopted DP mechanisms are the Gaussian, Laplace, and Rényi variants. The Gaussian mechanism adds zero‑mean normal noise \(N(0,\sigma^{2})\) to each query result, with the standard deviation calibrated to the privacy budget \(\varepsilon\) and a secondary failure probability \(\delta\) as \(\sigma \ge \sqrt{2\ln(1.25/\delta)}/\varepsilon\) [76]. The Laplace mechanism injects noise drawn from a Laplace distribution \(\operatorname{Lap}(0,\Delta/\varepsilon)\), where \(\Delta\) is the \(\ell_{1}\)‑sensitivity of the query [76]. Rényi DP (RDP) generalises the privacy loss by bounding the Rényi divergence of order \(\alpha\) between the output distributions of neighbouring datasets, yielding a cumulative privacy loss \((\alpha,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{R}})\) that can be converted to the standard \((\varepsilon,\delta)\) guarantee through established conversion formulas [76].

Selecting an appropriate privacy budget \(\varepsilon\) is a key design decision. Empirical studies on clinical big‑data analytics have examined a range \(\varepsilon=0.1\)–\(1.0\), demonstrating that tighter budgets (e.g., \(\varepsilon\le0.3\)) markedly reduce model utility, whereas moderate budgets (approximately \(\varepsilon\approx0.5\)) retain most predictive performance while still satisfying GDPR‑style confidentiality requirements [76]. In practice, researchers balance regulatory compliance, acceptable utility loss, and the risk tolerance of the data controller by conducting a utility‑privacy trade‑off analysis across several candidate \(\varepsilon\) values before fixing the final budget.

Synthetic‑data generation pipelines built on DP mechanisms enable the release of high‑fidelity neuromarketing surrogates without exposing raw biometric signals. A typical workflow first applies a DP mechanism (e.g., Gaussian) to the sufficient statistics of the original dataset, then trains a generative model on the perturbed statistics. State‑of‑the‑art generative approaches such as Conditional Tabular GAN (CTGAN), Deep Convolutional GAN (DCGAN), and oblivious variational autoencoders (OVAE) have been shown to produce synthetic tabular data that preserve the underlying patterns needed for elasticity estimation while meeting GDPR‑compliant privacy guarantees [64]. The pipeline therefore consists of (1) data‑minimisation and feature selection, (2) DP‑noise injection calibrated to the chosen \(\varepsilon\), (3) training of the generative model on the noisy data, and (4) validation of synthetic‑data utility against the original model performance. This approach allows researchers to share neuromarketing datasets for collaborative behavior‑elastic pricing research without compromising individual privacy.

Having outlined the core DP mechanisms, budget considerations, and DP‑driven synthetic‑data pipelines, the following subsection will explore hybrid privacy approaches and quantify the trade‑offs between utility and privacy.

6.4. Hybrid Privacy Approaches & Quantitative Trade‑offs¶

Hybrid privacy pipelines combine differential‑privacy (DP) noise injection with k‑anonymity‑based minimisation to satisfy both formal privacy guarantees and the data‑minimisation obligations of GDPR and CCPA. In the hybrid design, the core dataset is first transformed to satisfy a chosen k‑anonymity level (e.g., k = 5), which aggregates quasi‑identifiers into equivalence classes and thereby reduces re‑identification risk. The resulting boundary region—where records are most vulnerable to linkage attacks—is then perturbed with DP noise calibrated to a privacy budget ε, typically using the Gaussian mechanism (σ ≥ √{2 ln(1.25/δ)}/ε) or the Laplace mechanism (scale = Δ/ε) [25]. This two‑stage process yields synthetic‑like records that can be released or shared without exposing raw biometric signals while preserving the statistical structure needed for elasticity estimation [25].

The effectiveness of the hybrid approach is quantified with three complementary metrics. The DP component is measured by the privacy budget ε; smaller ε values indicate stronger protection but can degrade utility. The k‑anonymity stage is evaluated using Normalised Certainty Penalty (NCP), which captures the average information loss caused by generalisation, and the Information‑Loss‑Adjusted Gain (ILAG), which balances privacy loss against any gain in predictive accuracy [66]. Empirical experiments on the UCI Adult dataset illustrate the trade‑offs: a pure DP perturbation (ε ≈ 0.5) reduces classification accuracy by several percentage points relative to the unperturbed baseline, whereas a pure k‑anonymity transformation (k = 5) incurs a modest NCP increase but retains accuracy comparable to a Naïve Bayes classifier [25][20]. When the two techniques are combined, the hybrid pipeline achieves accuracy that is statistically indistinguishable from the baseline (i.e., within 1 % of the original Naïve Bayes performance) while simultaneously lowering NCP relative to k‑anonymity alone and raising ILAG, indicating a more favourable privacy‑utility balance [66][25].

A concise summary of these empirical findings is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Privacy‑utility trade‑offs for the Adult dataset. NCP and ILAG values are derived from the minimisation pipeline described in [66]; accuracy figures reflect the Naïve Bayes benchmark reported in [25].

The hybrid scheme therefore leverages the formal indistinguishability guarantee of DP (controlled by ε) while exploiting the structural data reduction of k‑anonymity (captured by NCP and ILAG) to obtain a privacy‑preserving dataset that remains fit for behavior‑elastic elasticity modelling. By integrating these complementary mechanisms, researchers can comply with stringent regulatory mandates without sacrificing the predictive fidelity required for optimal pricing decisions.

Having outlined the quantitative benefits of hybrid privacy approaches, the next subsection will examine the broader regulatory landscape that governs their deployment in neuromarketing‑driven pricing.

6.5. Regulatory Landscape¶

Under the EU AI Act, AI systems that process biometric or behavioural data are classified as high‑risk and must satisfy a suite of obligations: a pre‑market conformity assessment, detailed technical documentation, continuous post‑market monitoring, activity logging, and robust human‑oversight mechanisms, as well as the use of high‑quality, non‑discriminatory training data and explicit user information about the system’s operation [48][24]. To implement these requirements in a neuromarketing pricing pipeline, designers should (i) conduct a systematic risk‑assessment of the biometric‑data processing stages and document the outcomes in a conformity‑assessment file; (ii) embed immutable logs of data acquisition, model training, and price‑generation events; (iii) integrate a human‑in‑the‑loop verification step before any price adjustment is applied; (iv) ensure training datasets are audited for bias and that any personal identifiers are removed or pseudonymised in accordance with GDPR‑mandated data‑minimisation; and (v) provide consumers with clear, accessible notices and obtain explicit consent for any automated decision that influences purchase outcomes, satisfying Article 22 of the GDPR and the AI Act’s transparency clause [48][24].

In the United States, compliance must address a patchwork of statutes. Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act imposes strict consent, notice, and retention limits on the collection of biometric identifiers and creates a private right of action for each unlawful capture, so the system should implement a consent‑capture module that records affirmative user agreement before any facial‑geometry or physiological signal is stored, and enforce a data‑retention policy that deletes raw biometric records after the minimum period needed for model updates [65]. The federal Algorithmic Accountability Act requires covered entities to perform pre‑deployment impact assessments of automated decision systems, maintain comprehensive documentation of data provenance, bias‑testing results, and mitigation measures, and submit annual summary reports to the FTC in collaboration with NIST, which provides the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) as a guidance standard; consequently, the pricing tool should embed an automated impact‑assessment workflow that evaluates potential adverse effects on protected groups, generate machine‑readable audit trails, and align its risk‑management processes with the NIST AI RMF [84][71].

By translating these regulatory mandates into concrete engineering controls—risk‑assessment reports, immutable logging, human‑oversight checkpoints, bias‑audit pipelines, consent‑driven data capture, retention schedules, and AI‑RMF‑aligned governance modules—developers can construct neuromarketing‑based pricing systems that remain compliant across both the EU high‑risk regime and the fragmented US legal landscape. The next subsection will outline best‑practice governance structures that operationalise these design safeguards.

6.6. Best‑Practice Governance¶

Effective governance of neuromarketing‑driven pricing systems requires a structured, repeatable workflow that links ethical risk management to regulatory compliance. First, organisations should conduct a systematic ethical‑privacy‑impact assessment that evaluates potential bias, discrimination, and consumer‑welfare effects before model deployment; the assessment must be documented in a risk‑assessment report and updated whenever the data pipeline or pricing algorithm changes [45][4]. Second, an immutable audit‑trail architecture should be built into the pipeline to record, with cryptographic timestamps, every step of data acquisition, preprocessing, model training, and price‑generation event, thereby satisfying the EU AI Act’s logging and post‑market monitoring obligations [45][48]. Third, comprehensive model documentation must be maintained, detailing the algorithmic architecture, training data provenance, feature‑selection rationale, hyper‑parameter settings, and validation results, to enable transparent review by regulators and internal auditors [4]. Fourth, an interdisciplinary oversight committee—comprising ethicists, legal counsel, data‑science engineers, and domain experts—should be instituted with clearly defined mandates to review impact‑assessment findings, approve model releases, and monitor compliance with GDPR, the AI Act, and sector‑specific statutes such as Illinois’ BIPA [45][65]. Fifth, continuous monitoring mechanisms must be deployed to detect model‑drift, privacy‑risk escalation, and adverse consumer outcomes in real time; this includes automated bias‑testing pipelines, periodic privacy‑impact re‑evaluations, and alignment with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and the U.S. Algorithmic Accountability Act’s annual reporting requirements [48][84][71]. By embedding these five actionable steps—impact assessment, audit trails, model documentation, interdisciplinary oversight, and ongoing monitoring—firms can operationalise ethical safeguards and achieve sustained regulatory compliance.

Having established a best‑practice governance framework, the subsequent discussion and conclusion will synthesize how these controls influence the economic performance of behavior‑elastic pricing.

7. Discussion and Conclusion¶

The analysis demonstrates that substituting classical price‑elastic coefficients with behavior‑elastic estimates derived from neuromarketing signals materially alters optimal monopoly pricing: products with higher neural‑derived elasticity experience compressed mark‑ups, whereas modestly inelastic neural estimates can lead to slightly higher prices, reshaping profit margins across a portfolio. Robustness and sensitivity examinations reveal that measurement noise in high‑temporal modalities (e.g., EEG) propagates to greater uncertainty in elasticity and optimal‑price calculations, while model misspecification and static demand assumptions introduce bias that can be mitigated through dynamic learning schemes such as random‑price‑shock algorithms and Bayesian updating. Regularisation, hierarchical Bayesian inference, synthetic‑data augmentation, and adaptive experimental design collectively enhance estimation stability, though their effectiveness depends on the quality and quantity of neuro‑physiological data. Ethical and regulatory considerations impose additional design constraints: high‑risk classification under the EU AI Act and fragmented U.S. biometric statutes require explicit consent, rigorous audit trails, human‑in‑the‑loop oversight, and privacy‑preserving pipelines that combine data‑minimisation, k‑anonymity, differential‑privacy, and hybrid approaches to satisfy GDPR/CCPA mandates while preserving utility. Methodologically, the study is limited by the modest size of current neuromarketing datasets, reliance on static behavior‑elastic demand curves, and the absence of real‑time adaptive pricing feedback loops. Future research should pursue larger, longitudinal neuro‑datasets, develop fully dynamic behavior‑elastic models that update elasticity estimates in response to ongoing consumer interactions, and refine privacy‑utility trade‑offs for scalable deployment of neuromarketing‑driven pricing systems. Consequently, behavior‑elastic pricing can materially shift optimal mark‑ups, and robust ethical‑privacy governance is essential for compliant deployment.

References¶

1. A new method for quantifying EEG event-related desynchronization: amplitude evvelope analysis - ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0013469495001921 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
2. Electroencephalography. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
3. Effective artifact removal in resting state fMRI data improves detection of DMN functional connectivity alteration in Alzheimer's disease. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00449/full (Accessed: September 01, 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: September 01, 2025)
5. 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: September 01, 2025)
6. Electroencephalography in consumer behaviour and marketing: a science mapping approach. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01991-6 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2589295920300126. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2589295920300126 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
8. Isoelastic demands and constant markup. Available at: https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/52524/isoelastic-demands-and-constant-markup (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
9. What Is Arc Elasticity? Definition, Midpoint Formula, and Example. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/arc-elasticity.asp (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
10. 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: September 01, 2025)
11. (PDF) The Neuromarketing: Bridging Neuroscience and Marketing for Enhanced Consumer Engagement. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389345397_The_Neuromarketing_Bridging_Neuroscience_and_Marketing_for_Enhanced_Consumer_Engagement (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
12. Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3849338/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
13. The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2804646/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
14. https://elifesciences.org/articles/60874. Available at: https://elifesciences.org/articles/60874 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
15. Dynamic Learning and Pricing with Model Misspecification. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v65y2019i11p4980-5000.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354853271_Data_minimization_for_GDPR_compliance_in_machine_learning_models. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354853271_Data_minimization_for_GDPR_compliance_in_machine_learning_models (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
17. Neural correlates of effort-based valuation with prospective choices. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30347281/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
18. 3.3: Marginal Revenue and the Elasticity of Demand. Available at: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/The_Economics_of_Food_and_Agricultural_Markets_(Barkley)/03:_Monopoly_and_Market_Power/3.03:_Marginal_Revenue_and_the_Elasticity_of_Demand (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305277097_Estimating_Price_Elasticity_with_Sparse_Data_A_Bayesian_Approach. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305277097_Estimating_Price_Elasticity_with_Sparse_Data_A_Bayesian_Approach (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
20. Data Privacy Handbook. Available at: https://utrechtuniversity.github.io/dataprivacyhandbook/k-l-t-anonymity.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
21. Wikibooks, open books for an open world. Available at: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/SPM/Slice_Timing (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
22. A hierarchical Bayesian regression model that reduces uncertainty in material demand predictions - Bhuwalka - 2023 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13339 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
23. [2505.21595] Relevance-driven Input Dropout: an Explanation-guided Regularization Technique. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21595 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
24. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214785322033983. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214785322033983 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
26. Regularization Techniques in Neural Networks. Available at: https://ml-digest.com/regularization-techniques-in-neural-networks/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11006402_Improving_SNR_signal_to_noise_ratio_in_multichannel_EEG_recording. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11006402_Improving_SNR_signal_to_noise_ratio_in_multichannel_EEG_recording (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
28. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2859672. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2859672 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
29. A Comparative Analysis of Neural Networks and Statistical Methods for Predicting Consumer Choice | Marketing Science. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mksc.16.4.370 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
30. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. Available at: https://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
31. https://elifesciences.org/articles/88367. Available at: https://elifesciences.org/articles/88367 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214785320366128. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214785320366128 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
33. Lasso vs Ridge vs Elastic Net. Available at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/lasso-vs-ridge-vs-elastic-net-ml/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
34. Monte Carlo method. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
35. An overview of ethical issues in neuromarketing: Discussion and possible solutions. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/cub/journm/v18y2023i4p29-47.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
36. Bayesian hierarchical modeling based on multisource exchangeability. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5862286/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
37. On the Surprising Sufficiency of Linear Models for Dynamic Pricing with Demand Learning | Management Science. Available at: https://dlnext.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2031 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
38. Data minimization for GDPR compliance in machine learning models. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-021-00095-8 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
39. The Ethics of Neuromarketing: A Rapid Review. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-025-09591-8 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
40. https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy-south-asia/book/text/leibniz-07-08-01.html. Available at: https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy-south-asia/book/text/leibniz-07-08-01.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
41. Effective artifact removal in resting state fMRI data improves detection of DMN functional connectivity alteration in Alzheimer's disease. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531245/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
42. Chapter 3. Monopoly and Market Power – The Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets. Available at: https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/economicsoffoodandag/chapter/unknown-2/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
43. Elasticity of Demand. Available at: https://www.sfu.ca/math-coursenotes/Math 157 Course Notes/sec_ElasticityOfDemand.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
44. Signal-to-noise ratio in predictive modeling and machine learning. Available at: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/657395/signal-to-noise-ratio-in-predictive-modeling-and-machine-learning (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
45. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
46. P300 amplitude variation is related to ventral striatum BOLD response during gain and loss anticipation: an EEG and fMRI experiment. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24718288/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320315000989. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320315000989 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
48. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
49. Technological advancements and opportunities in Neuromarketing: a systematic review. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7505913/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
50. Slice-timing effects and their correction in functional MRI. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167249/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304407620302505. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304407620302505 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
52. Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_hierarchical_modeling (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
53. Lerner index. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
54. From Linear Regression to Ridge Regression, the Lasso, and the Elastic Net. Available at: https://towardsdatascience.com/from-linear-regression-to-ridge-regression-the-lasso-and-the-elastic-net-4eaecaf5f7e6/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
55. Signal to Noise in EEG. Available at: https://nmsba.com/neuromarketing-companies/neuromarketing-technologies-explained/signal-to-noise-in-eeg (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
56. 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: September 01, 2025)
57. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2031. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2031 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304393219301138. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304393219301138 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
59. Neuromarketing — Predicting Consumer Behavior to Drive Purchasing Decisions - Professional & Executive Development. Available at: https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/marketing/neuromarketing-predicting-consumer-behavior-to-drive-purchasing-decisions/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361841516301554. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361841516301554 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
61. Bayesian hierarchical modeling: an introduction and reassessment. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-023-02204-3 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
62. Bias and variance in leave-one-out vs K-fold cross validation. Available at: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/61783/bias-and-variance-in-leave-one-out-vs-k-fold-cross-validation (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
63. Spatial Normalization Discrepancies between Native and MNI152 Brain Template Scans in Gamma Ventral Capsulotomy Patients. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10153791/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
64. A Systematic Review of Synthetic Data Generation Techniques Using Generative AI. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/17/3509 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
65. Is Biometric Information Protected by Privacy Laws?. Available at: https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/privacy/biometric-data-privacy-laws/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343568920_Data_Minimization_for_GDPR_Compliance_in_Machine_Learning_Models. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343568920_Data_Minimization_for_GDPR_Compliance_in_Machine_Learning_Models (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
67. Inverse demand function. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_demand_function (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
68. Protecting Privacy Using k-Anonymity. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2528029/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
69. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3194. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3194 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
70. Cross Validation in Machine Learning. Available at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/machine-learning/cross-validation-machine-learning/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
71. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117^th-congress/senate-bill/3572. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117^th-congress/senate-bill/3572 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
72. Mapping the signal‐to‐noise‐ratios of cortical sources in magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2882168/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
73. (PDF) Neuromarketing Algorithms' Consumer Privacy and Ethical Considerations: Challenges and Opportunities. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376409902_Neuromarketing_Algorithms'_Consumer_Privacy_and_Ethical_Considerations_Challenges_and_Opportunities (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/monte-carlo-simulation. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/monte-carlo-simulation (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
75. Python Tutorial: Lasso and Ridge Regression Explained. Available at: https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2017/06/a-comprehensive-guide-for-linear-ridge-and-lasso-regression/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
76. Enhance differential privacy mechanisms for clinical data analysis using CNNs and reinforcement learning - Journal of Big Data. Available at: https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-025-01215-5 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
77. Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
78. (PDF) Neuromarketing: What Is It and Is It a Threat to Privacy?. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283818635_Neuromarketing_What_Is_It_and_Is_It_a_Threat_to_Privacy (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
79. https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article/67/2/301/7109482. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article/67/2/301/7109482 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
80. Privacy Behaviour: A Model for Online Informed Consent. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05202-1 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
81. The elasticity of demand. Available at: https://books.core-econ.org/the-economy/v1/book/text/leibniz-07-08-01.html (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
82. https://machinelearningmastery.com/k-fold-cross-validation/. Available at: https://machinelearningmastery.com/k-fold-cross-validation/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
83. Monte Carlo Simulation: What It Is, How It Works, History, 4 Key Steps. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/montecarlosimulation.asp (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
84. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117^th-congress/house-bill/6580/text. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117^th-congress/house-bill/6580/text (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421004668. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421004668 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
86. A survey of Monte Carlo methods for parameter estimation - EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing. Available at: https://asp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13634-020-00675-6 (Accessed: September 01, 2025)
87. A systematic review of the prediction of consumer preference using EEG measures and machine-learning in neuromarketing research. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9663791/ (Accessed: September 01, 2025)