MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385902233 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217178

Identifying relevant asymmetry features of EEG for emotion processing

2023· article· en· W4385902233 on OpenAlexaff
Fatima Islam Mouri, Camilo E. Valderrama, Sergio Camorlinga

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLateralization of brain functionElectroencephalographySadnessAsymmetryCognitive psychologyHappinessBrain asymmetryAssociation (psychology)AudiologySocial psychologyAngerNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The left and right hemispheres of the brain process emotion differently. Neuroscientists have proposed two models to explain this difference. The first model states that the right hemisphere is dominant over the left to process all emotions. In contrast, the second model states that the left hemisphere processes positive emotions, whereas the right hemisphere processes negative emotions. Previous studies have used these asymmetry models to enhance the classification of emotions in machine learning models. However, little research has been conducted to explore how machine learning models can help identify associations between hemisphere asymmetries and emotion processing. To address this gap, we conducted two experiments using a subject-independent approach to explore how the asymmetry of the brain hemispheres is involved in processing happiness, sadness, fear, and neutral emotions. We analyzed electroencephalogram (EEG) signals from 15 subjects collected while they watched video clips evoking these four emotions. We derived asymmetry features from the recorded EEG signals by calculating the log ratio between the relative energy of symmetrical left and right nodes. Using the asymmetry features, we trained four binary logistic regressions, one for each emotion, to identify which features were more relevant to the predictions. The average AUC-ROC across the 15 subjects was 56.2, 54.6, 51.6, and 58.4% for neutral, sad, fear, and happy, respectively. We validated these results with an independent dataset, achieving comparable AUC-ROC values. Our results showed that brain lateralization was observed primarily in the alpha frequency bands, whereas for the other frequency bands, both hemispheres were involved in emotion processing. Furthermore, the logistic regression analysis indicated that the gamma and alpha bands were the most relevant for predicting emotional states, particularly for the lateral frontal, parietal, and temporal EEG pairs, such as FT7-FT8, T7-T8, and TP7-TP8. These findings provide valuable insights into which brain areas and frequency bands need to be considered when developing predictive models for emotion recognition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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