Cited by 155Emotion and Mood RecognitionEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFace and Expression Recognition

Cross-Subject EEG Feature Selection for Emotion Recognition Using Transfer Recursive Feature Elimination

Open access
Yin, Zhong, Wang, Yongxiong, Liu, Li, Zhang, Wei, Zhang, Jianhua·2017·Frontiers in Neurorobotics

Abstract

Using machine-learning methodologies to analyze EEG signals becomes increasingly attractive for recognizing human emotions because of the objectivity of physiological data and the capability of the learning principles on modeling emotion classifiers from heterogeneous features. However, the conventional subject-specific classifiers may induce additional burdens to each subject for preparing multiple-session EEG data as training sets. To this end, we developed a new EEG feature selection approach, transfer recursive feature elimination (T-RFE), to determine a set of the most robust EEG indicators with stable geometrical distribution across a group of training subjects and a specific testing subject. A validating set is introduced to independently determine the optimal hyper-parameter and the feature ranking of the T-RFE model aiming at controlling the overfitting. The effectiveness of the T-RFE algorithm for such cross-subject emotion classification paradigm has been validated by DEAP database. With a linear least square support vector machine classifier implemented, the performance of the T-RFE is compared against several conventional feature selection schemes and the statistical significant improvement has been found. The classification rate and F-score achieve 0.7867, 0.7526, 0.7875, and 0.8077 for arousal and valence dimensions, respectively, and outperform several recent reported works on the same database. In the end, the T-RFE based classifier is compared against two subject-generic classifiers in the literature. The investigation of the computational time for all classifiers indicates the accuracy improvement of the T-RFE is at the cost of the longer training time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnbot.2017.00019

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Anders S. Lotze M. Erb M. Grodd W. Birbaumer N. (2004). Brain activity underlying emotional valence and arousal: a response related fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 23, 200– 209. 10.1002/hbm.20048 15449355 PMC6871723 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Atkinson J. Campos D. (2016). Improving BCI-based emotion recognition by combining EEG feature selection and kernel classifiers, Expert. Syst. Appl. 47, 35– 41. 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.10.049 · DOI
  3. Balconi M. Mazza G. (2009). Brain oscillations and BIS/BAS (behavioral inhibition/activation system) effects on processing masked emotional cues: ERS/ERD and coherence measures of alpha band. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 74, 158– 165. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.08.006 19709636 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Baldwin C. Penaranda B. (2012). Adaptive training using an artificial neural network and EEG metrics for within and cross-task workload classification. Neuroimage 59, 48– 56. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.047 21835243 · DOI
  5. Birbaumer N. (2006). Breaking the silence: brain-computer interfaces (BCI) for communication and motor control. Psychophysiology 43, 517– 532. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00456.x 17076808 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bishop C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York, NY: Springer.
  7. Brunner C. Vidaurre C. Billinger M. Neuper C. (2011). A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain-computer interfaces. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 49, 1337– 1346. 10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x 21947797 PMC3208819 · DOI
  8. Chen J. Hua B. Moore P. Zhang X. Ma X. (2015). Electroencephalogram-based emotion assessment system using ontology and data mining techniques. Appl. Soft. Comput. 30, 663– 674. 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.01.007 · DOI
  9. Christensen J. Estepp J. Wilson G. Russell C. (2012). The effects of day-to-day variability of physiological data on operator functional state classification. Neuroimage 59, 57– 63. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.091 21840403 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fanelli G. Gall J. Romsdorfer H. Weise T. Van Gool L. (2010). A 3-D audio-visual corpus of affective communication. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 12, 591– 598. 10.1109/TMM.2010.2052239 · DOI
  11. Guyon I. Weston J. Barnhill S. Vapnik V. (2002). Gene selection forcancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389– 422. 10.1023/A:1012487302797 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hanjalic A. Xu L.-Q. (2005). Affective video content representation and modeling. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 7, 143– 154. 10.1109/TMM.2004.840618 · DOI
  13. Khezri M. Firoozabadi M. Sharafat A. R. (2015). Reliable emotion recognition system based on dynamic adaptive fusion of forehead biopotentials and physiological signals. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 122, 149– 164. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.07.006 26253158 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kim J. Andre E. (2008). Emotion recognition based on physiological changes in music listening. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 30, 2067– 2083. 10.1109/TPAMI.2008.26 18988943 · DOI
  15. Koelstra S. Muehl C. Soleymani M. Lee J.-S. Yazdani A. Ebrahimi T. E. (2012). DEAP: a database for emotion analysis using physiological signals. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 3, 18– 31. 10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.15 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Konstantinidis E. I. Frantzidis C. A. Pappas C. Bamidis P. D. (2012). Real time emotion aware applications: a case study employing emotion evocative pictures and neuro-physiological sensing enhanced by graphic processor units. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 107, 16– 27. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.03.008 22520825 · DOI
  17. Lang P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: studies of motivation and attention. Am. Psychol. 50, 372– 385. 10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372 7762889 · DOI
  18. Li C. Xu C. Feng Z. (2016). Analysis of physiological for emotion recognition with the IRS model. Neurocomputing 178, 103– 111. 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.07.112 · DOI
  19. Li X. Zhang P. Song D. Yu G. Hou Y. Hu B. (2015). EEG based emotion identification using unsupervised deep feature learning, in SIGIR2015 Workshop on Neuro-Physiological Methods in IR Research (Santiago) (Accessed August 13, 2015).
  20. Liu Y. Sourina O. (2012). EEG-based valence level recognition for real-time applications. IEEE Int. Conf. Cyberworlds, 53– 60. 10.1109/CW.2012.15 · DOI
  21. Naseer N. Noori F. M. Qureshi N. K. Hong K.-S. (2016). Determining optimal feature-combination for LDA classification of functional near-infrared spectroscopy signals in brain-computer interface application. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10: 237. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00237 27252637 PMC4879140 · DOI
  22. Naser D. S. Saha G. (2013). Recognition of emotions induced by music videos using DT-CWPT, in Indian Conference on Medical Informatics and Telemedicine (ICMIT) (Kharagpur: IEEE), 53– 57.
  23. Russell J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1161– 1178. 10.1037/h0077714 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Soleymani M. Lichtenauer J. Pun T. Pantic M. (2012). A multi-modal database for affect recognition and implicit tagging. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 3, 42– 55. 10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.25 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Vapnik V. (2000). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York, NY: Springer.
  26. Verma G. K. Tiwary U. S. (2014). Multimodal fusion framework: a multiresolution approach for emotion classification and recognition from physiological signal. Neuroimage 102, 162– 172. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.007 24269801 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Wang D. Shang Y. (2013). Modeling physiological data with deep belief networks. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 3, 505– 511. 10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.326 25165501 PMC4142685 · DOI
  28. Wang Z. Hope R. M. Wang Z. Ji Q. Gray W. D. (2012). Cross-subject workload classification with a hierarchical Bayes model. Neuroimage 59, 64– 69. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.094 21867763 · DOI
  29. Yin Z. Zhang J. (2014). Operator functional state classification using least-square support vector machine based recursive feature elimination technique. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 113, 101– 115. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.09.007 24138846 · DOI
  30. Yoon H. J. Chung S. Y. (2013). EEG-based emotion estimation using Bayesian weighted-log-posterior function and perceptron convergence algorithm. Comput. Biol. Med. 43, 2230– 2237. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2013.10.017 24290940 · DOI
  31. Zeng Z. Pantic M. Roisman G. I. Huang T. S. (2009). A survey of affect recognition methods: audio, visual, and spontaneous expressions. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 31, 39– 58. 10.1109/TPAMI.2008.52 19029545 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Zhang J. Yin Z. Wang R. (2015). Recognition of mental workload levels under complex human-machine collaboration by using physiological features and adaptive support vector machines. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 45, 200– 214. 10.1109/THMS.2014.2366914 · DOI
  33. Zhang Q. Lee M. (2013). Analyzing the dynamics of emotional scene sequence using recurrent neuro-fuzzy network. Cogn. Neurodyn. 7, 47– 57. 10.1007/s11571-012-9216-y 24427190 PMC3538097 · DOI
  34. Zhang Y. Ji X. Zhang S. (2016). An approach to EEG-based emotion recognition using combined feature extraction method. Neurosci. Lett. 633, 152– 157. 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.09.037 27666975 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yin, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, W., & Zhang, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (CN)
  • East China University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Yin, Zhong
  • Wang, Yongxiong
Venue
Frontiers in Neurorobotics
Published
2017-04-10
Volume
11
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1662-5218 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604825588
Cited by
155
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5
FWCI
19.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neurorobotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61673276, 11502145, 61603256)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
Keywords
EEG feature selection, emotion recognition, cross-subject classification, DEAP database, valence and arousal, least squares support vector machine, overfitting reduction, EEG biomarkers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review