Feature Selection for Continuous within- and Cross-User EEG-Based Emotion Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monitoring of emotional state is important in the prevention and management of mental health problems and is increasingly being used to support affective computing. As such, researchers are exploring various modalities from which emotion can be inferred, such as through facial images or via electroencephalography (EEG) signals. Current research commonly investigates the performance of machine-learning-based emotion recognition systems by exposing users to stimuli that are assumed to elicit a single unchanging emotional response. Moreover, in order to demonstrate better results, many models are tested in evaluation frameworks that do not reflect realistic real-world implementations. Consequently, in this paper, we explore the design of EEG-based emotion recognition systems using longer, variable stimuli using the publicly available AMIGOS dataset. Feature engineering and selection results are evaluated across four different cross-validation frameworks, including versions of leave-one-movie-out (testing with a known user, but a previously unseen movie), leave-one-person-out (testing with a known movie, but a previously unseen person), and leave-one-person-and-movie-out (testing on both a new user and new movie). Results of feature selection lead to a 13% absolute improvement over comparable previously reported studies, and demonstrate the importance of evaluation framework on the design and performance of EEG-based emotion recognition systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".