MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283069747 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-14217-7

Accurate emotion recognition using Bayesian model based EEG sources as dynamic graph convolutional neural network nodes

2022· article· en· W4283069747 on OpenAlexaff
Shiva Asadzadeh, Tohid Yousefi Rezaii, Soosan Beheshti, Saeed Meshgini

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Bayesian probabilityGraphAdjacency matrixRandom forestMachine learningSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the effect of emotions on interactions, interpretations, and decisions, automatic detection and analysis of human emotions based on EEG signals has an important role in the treatment of psychiatric diseases. However, the low spatial resolution of EEG recorders poses a challenge. In order to overcome this problem, in this paper we model each emotion by mapping from scalp sensors to brain sources using Bernoulli-Laplace-based Bayesian model. The standard low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) method is used to initialize the source signals in this algorithm. Finally, a dynamic graph convolutional neural network (DGCNN) is used to classify emotional EEG in which the sources of the proposed localization model are considered as the underlying graph nodes. In the proposed method, the relationships between the EEG source signals are encoded in the DGCNN adjacency matrix. Experiments on our EEG dataset recorded at the Brain-Computer Interface Research Laboratory, University of Tabriz as well as publicly available SEED and DEAP datasets show that brain source modeling by the proposed algorithm significantly improves the accuracy of emotion recognition, such that it achieve a classification accuracy of 99.25% during the classification of the two classes of positive and negative emotions. These results represent an absolute 1-2% improvement in terms of classification accuracy over subject-dependent and subject-independent scenarios over the existing approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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