Accurate emotion recognition using Bayesian model based EEG sources as dynamic graph convolutional neural network nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".