| Literature DB >> 29758967 |
Xin Chai1, Qisong Wang1, Yongping Zhao1, Xin Liu2, Dan Liu1, Ou Bai3.
Abstract
Emotion recognition based on EEG signals is a critical component in Human-Machine collaborative environments and psychiatric health diagnoses. However, EEG patterns have been found to vary across subjects due to user fatigue, different electrode placements, and varying impedances, etc. This problem renders the performance of EEG-based emotion recognition highly specific to subjects, requiring time-consuming individual calibration sessions to adapt an emotion recognition system to new subjects. Recently, domain adaptation (DA) strategies have achieved a great deal success in dealing with inter-subject adaptation. However, most of them can only adapt one subject to another subject, which limits their applicability in real-world scenarios. To alleviate this issue, a novel unsupervised DA strategy called Multi-Subject Subspace Alignment (MSSA) is proposed in this paper, which takes advantage of subspace alignment solution and multi-subject information in a unified framework to build personalized models without user-specific labeled data. Experiments on a public EEG dataset known as SEED verify the effectiveness and superiority of MSSA over other state of the art methods for dealing with multi-subject scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; domain adaptation; emotion recognition; logistic regression; multi-subject learning
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29758967 PMCID: PMC6004980 DOI: 10.3233/THC-174739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Health Care ISSN: 0928-7329 Impact factor: 1.285
Figure 1.An example to demonstrate domain adaptation algorithm. (a) Shows data distribution from Subject 1. (b) Shows data distribution from Subject 2. (c) Shows the transformed data after domain adaptation. It can be seen that the intention of domain adaptation is reducing the discrepancy in distribution and making classifiers is robust to both Subjects 1 and 2.
Figure 2.Overview of multi-subject subspace alignment.
Figure 3.Experimental protocol for emotion recognition based on EEG signal for one subject.
Comparison results of each subject on the SEED dataset (Accuracy in %)
| Subject No. | SVM | LR | AE | TCA | TJM | MSSA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 49.78 | 48.15 | 58.04 | 71.81 | 73.55 | 75.29 |
| 2 | 48.67 | 48.99 | 46.53 | 75.47 | 73.34 | 76.44 |
| 3 | 56.24 | 55.86 | 63.20 | 77.03 | 74.49 | 82.59 |
| 4 | 71.69 | 70.20 | 85.70 | 91.08 | 86.42 | 94.59 |
| 5 | 56.56 | 53.10 | 52.63 | 58.62 | 62.57 | 67.71 |
| 6 | 61.30 | 59.50 | 57.54 | 73.13 | 74.69 | 75.93 |
| 7 | 55.35 | 62.42 | 65.01 | 83.13 | 80.29 | 81.01 |
| 8 | 48.24 | 49.55 | 62.66 | 64.67 | 74.75 | 81.68 |
| 9 | 53.06 | 51.76 | 57.02 | 84.09 | 82.47 | 85.47 |
| 10 | 41.97 | 41.88 | 51.15 | 64.02 | 65.32 | 67.21 |
| 11 | 66.81 | 64.57 | 66.59 | 83.27 | 83.54 | 83.27 |
| 12 | 65.64 | 66.75 | 67.75 | 73.92 | 75.73 | 75.60 |
| 13 | 67.11 | 69.28 | 70.82 | 79.30 | 78.24 | 78.84 |
| 14 | 65.67 | 67.58 | 62.57 | 84.25 | 85.23 | 88.10 |
| 15 | 57.37 | 60.04 | 54.76 | 67.11 | 71.29 | 80.45 |
| Average | 57.70 | 57.98 | 61.46 | 75.39 | 76.13 | 79.61 |
Figure 4.The mean results of all of the subjects from same session on the SEED dataset.
Evaluation of the statistical significance between the performance of MSSA and other methods
| MSSA Vs | SVM | LR | AE | TCA | TJM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.91 | 2.08 | 7.95 | 7.38 | 8.93 |