Automated Feature Extraction on AsMap for Emotion Classification Using EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion recognition using EEG has been widely studied to address the challenges associated with affective computing. Using manual feature extraction methods on EEG signals results in sub-optimal performance by the learning models. With the advancements in deep learning as a tool for automated feature engineering, in this work, a hybrid of manual and automatic feature extraction methods has been proposed. The asymmetry in different brain regions is captured in a 2D vector, termed the AsMap, from the differential entropy features of EEG signals. These AsMaps are then used to extract features automatically using a convolutional neural network model. The proposed feature extraction method has been compared with differential entropy and other feature extraction methods such as relative asymmetry, differential asymmetry and differential caudality. Experiments are conducted using the SJTU emotion EEG dataset and the DEAP dataset on different classification problems based on the number of classes. Results obtained indicate that the proposed method of feature extraction results in higher classification accuracy, outperforming the other feature extraction methods. The highest classification accuracy of 97.10% is achieved on a three-class classification problem using the SJTU emotion EEG dataset. Further, this work has also assessed the impact of window size on classification accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".