A Comprehensive Review for Emotion Detection Based on EEG Signals: Challenges, Applications, and Open Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion classification based on physiological signals has become a hot topic in the past decade. Many studies have attempted to classify emotions using various techniques, to discover human emotions accurately. This study focused on listing the most recent studies that have classified emotions based on electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. This study also focused on solving the problems and challenges facing researchers in emotion classification and EEG applications used in several fields. The plan of this study is based on a strategy with three aspects within specific rules: The first aspect is the methods; we chose studies that included new methods to extract features. The second aspect is the data sets. We tried to choose a study that classified the same data set. The third aspect is applications; we have listed many applications of the EEG in several areas. We concluded from this study that detecting human emotions using the EEG signals is one of the most reliable and widely used methods of detecting emotions in the past few years. Also, we have noticed that the EEG can detect human emotions, especially in psychiatry, for example, for epileptic patients whose emotions cannot be extracted using traditional methods such as facial expressions and tone of voice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".