MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104660304 · doi:10.1109/taffc.2020.3023966

An Emotion Recognition Method for Game Evaluation Based on Electroencephalogram

2020· article· en· W3104660304 on OpenAlexaff
Guanglong Du, Wenpei Zhou, Chunquan Li, Di Li, Peter Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEmotion recognitionElectroencephalographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionEmotion classificationPsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Players-based emotion recognition can help the understanding game players’ emotional states, contributing to the improvement of the game's quality and value. This article develops a hybrid neural network learning framework called convolutional smooth feedback fuzzy network (CSFFN) to detect a player's emotional states in real-time during a gaming process based on electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. Specifically, CSFFN rationally combines a convolutional neural network (CNN), a fuzzy neural network (FNN), and a recurrent neural network (RNN). CNN not only captures spatial characteristics between EEG signals from different channels but also eliminates noise from EEG signals, improving the accuracy and anti-noise performance in game emotion recognition. FNN extracts the membership degree of a player's different emotional states, further improving the emotion recognition accuracy. Since a player's current emotional state is influenced by the previous emotional states during the game process, RNN is employed to capture the temporal characteristics of EEG signals, better improving the emotion recognition accuracy. Experimental results show that CSFFN has higher recognition accuracy and noise resistance in identifying four emotional states (happiness, sadness, superiority, and anger) compared to support vector machine (SVM) with different kernels, linear discrimination analysis (LDA), AlexNet, and VGG16 methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Affective ComputingSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207