Exploring the Effect of Age and Sex on Subject-Independent EEG-Based Emotion Recognition Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of emotion recognition, there are two approaches used to develop predictive models that recognize emotions from EEG signals: subject-dependent and subject-independent. Subject-independent models, although more practical, tend to yield a lower performance due to the high variability of EEG signals between individuals. Recent studies have indicated that incorporating prior demographic information about individuals can improve the accuracy of subject-independent approaches. Some studies have supported this claim by showing that including individuals’ sex can boost model accuracy. However, until now, no one has used interpretable models to measure to what extent demographics can enhance subject-independent approaches. In this work, we follow this direction by using a logistic regression model to correlate the output of a deep learning model with subjects’ age and sex, thereby evaluating whether these factors impact emotion prediction. Our analysis indicates that the ‘sex’ variable significantly influenced the predictions of the deep learning model in three out of five emotions, whereas ‘age’ does not have any effect. These findings suggest that sex is a factor that needs to be considered when designing EEG-based emotion recognition models, which could lead to more robust subject-independent models with potential applications in areas such as healthcare, education, and marketing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".