Mapping and Bridging Neuroscience-Based Research Domains: Neuromarketing, Neuroeconomics, Neurotourism and Neurorobotics

Background/Objectives: Neuroscience-based research has expanded across neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience, neuroeconomics, neurotourism and neurorobotics, but these domains differ in disciplinary orientation, levels of consolidation and methodological traditions. This study examines the scientific and thematic evolution represented within the analytical corpus across these domains, the position of neurotourism within this broader landscape, and differences in methodological approaches, key constructs and reported research needs. Methods: A scoping review combined structural evidence mapping with structured abstract-level data charting of 981 English-language articles indexed in Scopus. Bibliometric procedures examined scientific production, citation patterns, author-keyword co-occurrence and thematic evolution, while rule-based and human-validated classification supported cross-domain comparison. Abstracts were available for 972 publications. Results: Scientific production increased substantially over time, while the specified author-keyword network remained centred on neuroeconomics and neuromarketing, with neurorobotics occupying a more peripheral technological position. Thematic evolution showed continuity in these domains alongside increasing specialisation in neuroimaging, machine learning, memory, embodiment and spiking neural networks. Within the analytical corpus, the neurotourism-related core comprised eight publications and was methodologically heterogeneous, with only one primary empirical study involving human participants and direct psychophysiological measurement. A broader body of tourism and hospitality research was located mainly within neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience, with more limited contributions from neuroeconomics and neurorobotics. Reported research needs differed, ranging from methodological consistency and conceptual refinement to technological robustness and empirical consolidation. Conclusions: The four domains are connected but are not conceptually or methodologically interchangeable. Distinguishing scientific-domain membership from application context clarifies how tourism-related neuroscience extends beyond the neurotourism label and how related domains may strengthen its empirical and interdisciplinary development.