Cross-Subject EEG Emotion Recognition With Self-Organized Graph Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a physiological process and high-level cognitive behavior, emotion is an important subarea in neuroscience research. Emotion recognition across subjects based on brain signals has attracted much attention. Due to individual differences across subjects and the low signal-to-noise ratio of EEG signals, the performance of conventional emotion recognition methods is relatively poor. In this paper, we propose a self-organized graph neural network (SOGNN) for cross-subject EEG emotion recognition. Unlike the previous studies based on pre-constructed and fixed graph structure, the graph structure of SOGNN are dynamically constructed by self-organized module for each signal. To evaluate the cross-subject EEG emotion recognition performance of our model, leave-one-subject-out experiments are conducted on two public emotion recognition datasets, SEED and SEED-IV. The SOGNN is able to achieve state-of-the-art emotion recognition performance. Moreover, we investigated the performance variances of the models with different graph construction techniques or features in different frequency bands. Furthermore, we visualized the graph structure learned by the proposed model and found that part of the structure coincided with previous neuroscience research. The experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed model for cross-subject EEG emotion 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".