Predicting The Three Major Dimensions Of The Learner-S Emotions From Brainwaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates how the use of machine learning techniques can significantly predict the three major dimensions of learner-s emotions (pleasure, arousal and dominance) from brainwaves. This study has adopted an experimentation in which participants were exposed to a set of pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) while their electrical brain activity was recorded with an electroencephalogram (EEG). The pictures were already rated in a previous study via the affective rating system Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) to assess the three dimensions of pleasure, arousal, and dominance. For each picture, we took the mean of these values for all subjects used in this previous study and associated them to the recorded brainwaves of the participants in our study. Correlation and regression analyses confirmed the hypothesis that brainwave measures could significantly predict emotional dimensions. This can be very useful in the case of impassive, taciturn or disabled learners. Standard classification techniques were used to assess the reliability of the automatic detection of learners- three major dimensions from the brainwaves. We discuss the results and the pertinence of such a method to assess learner-s emotions and integrate it into a brainwavesensing Intelligent Tutoring System.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".