Decoding the neural signatures of valence and arousal from portable EEG headset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion classification using electroencephalography (EEG) data and machine learning techniques have been on the rise in the recent past. However, past studies use data from medical-grade EEG setups with long set-up times and environment constraints. This paper focuses on classifying emotions on the valence-arousal plane using various feature extraction, feature selection, and machine learning techniques. We evaluate different feature extraction and selection techniques and propose the optimal set of features and electrodes for emotion recognition. The images from the OASIS image dataset were used to elicit valence and arousal emotions, and the EEG data was recorded using the Emotiv Epoc X mobile EEG headset. The analysis is carried out on publicly available datasets: DEAP and DREAMER for benchmarking. We propose a novel feature ranking technique and incremental learning approach to analyze performance dependence on the number of participants. Leave-one-subject-out cross-validation was carried out to identify subject bias in emotion elicitation patterns. The importance of different electrode locations was calculated, which could be used for designing a headset for emotion recognition. The collected dataset and pipeline are also published. Our study achieved a root mean square score (RMSE) of 0.905 on DREAMER, 1.902 on DEAP, and 2.728 on our dataset for valence label and a score of 0.749 on DREAMER, 1.769 on DEAP, and 2.3 on our proposed dataset for arousal label.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".