MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1735663193 · doi:10.1109/ner.2015.7146774

Mutual information between inter-hemispheric EEG spectro-temporal patterns: A new feature for automated affect recognition

2015· article· en· W1735663193 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Clerico, Rishabh Gupta, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceValence (chemistry)Feature (linguistics)Feature extractionNeurophysiologyPsychologyPhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated electroencephalography (EEG) based affect recognition has gained a lot of interest recently, with clinical (e.g., in autism), human-computer interaction (e.g., affective brain-computer interfaces), neuromarketing, and even multimedia (e.g., affective video tagging) applications. Typically, conventional EEG features such as spectral power, coherence, and frontal asymmetry have been used to characterize affective states. Recently, cross-frequency coupling measures have also been explored. In this paper, we propose a new feature set that combines some of these aforementioned paradigms. First, the full-band EEG signal is decomposed into four subband signals, namely theta, alpha, beta, and gamma. The amplitude modulation (or envelope) of these signals is then computed via a Hilbert transform. These amplitude modulations are further decomposed into 10 cross-frequency coupling patterns (e.g., gamma-beta coupling pattern). The mutual information between each of these ten patterns is then calculated for all inter-hemispheric EEG electrode pairs. To gauge the effectiveness of the newly-proposed feature set, the so-called DEAP database was used. Experimental results show the proposed feature set outperforming conventional ones for estimation of arousal, valence, dominance, and liking affective dimensions. Gains of up to 20% could be achieved when the proposed features were fused with spectral power and asymmetry index features, thus suggesting complementarity between spectral and spectro-temporal features for automated affective state recognition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207