MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525246131 · doi:10.1109/dmiaf.2016.7574921

EEG-based affect states classification using Deep Belief Networks

2016· article· en· W2525246131 on OpenAlexaff
Haiyan Xu, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep belief networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSupport vector machineElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Machine learningFeature selectionDeep learningRandom forestProcess (computing)Feature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affective states classification has become an important part of the Brain-Computer Interface (HCI) study. In recent years, affective computing systems using physiological signals, such as ECG, GSR and EEG has shown very promising results. However, like many other machine learning studies involving physiological signals, the bottle neck is always around the database acquisition and the annotation process. To investigate potential ways to address this small sample problem, this paper introduces a Deep Belief Networks (DBN) based learning system for the EEG-based affective processing system. Through the greedy-layer pretraining using unlabeled data as well as a supervised fine-tuning process, the DBN-based approaches significantly reduced the number of labeled samples required. The DBN methods also acted as an application specific feature selector, by examining the weight vector between the input feature vector and the first invisible layer, we can gain much needed insights on the spatial or spectral locations of the most discriminating features. In this study, DBNs are trained on the narrow-band spectral features extracted from multichannel EEG recordings. To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed DBN-based learning system, we carried out an subject-independent affective states classification experiments on the DEAP database to classify 2-dimensional affect states. As a baseline to the proposed DBN approach, the same classification problem was also carried out using support vector machines (SVMs) and one-way ANOVA based feature selection process. The classification results shown that the proposed framework using Deep Belief Networks not only provided better classification performance, but also significantly lower the number of labeled data required to train such machine learning systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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