MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311630662 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.1051463

Decoding the neural signatures of valence and arousal from portable EEG headset

2022· article· en· W4311630662 on OpenAlexaff
Nikhil Garg, Rohit Garg, A. Jose Anand, Veeky Baths

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersEuropean Research CouncilDepartment of Science and Technology, Government of Rajasthan
KeywordsHeadsetElectroencephalographyValence (chemistry)Computer scienceFeature extractionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature selectionArousalSpeech recognitionInternational Affective Picture SystemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207