| Literature DB >> 33212929 |
Matteo Fraschini1, Miro Meli1, Matteo Demuru2, Luca Didaci1, Luigi Barberini3.
Abstract
The electroencephalogram (EEG) has been proven to be a promising technique for personal identification and verification. Recently, the aperiodic component of the power spectrum was shown to outperform other commonly used EEG features. Beyond that, EEG characteristics may capture relevant features related to emotional states. In this work, we aim to understand if the aperiodic component of the power spectrum, as shown for resting-state experimental paradigms, is able to capture EEG-based subject-specific features in a naturalistic stimuli scenario. In order to answer this question, we performed an analysis using two freely available datasets containing EEG recordings from participants during viewing of film clips that aim to trigger different emotional states. Our study confirms that the aperiodic components of the power spectrum, as evaluated in terms of offset and exponent parameters, are able to detect subject-specific features extracted from the scalp EEG. In particular, our results show that the performance of the system was significantly higher for the film clip scenario if compared with resting-state, thus suggesting that under naturalistic stimuli it is even easier to identify a subject. As a consequence, we suggest a paradigm shift, from task-based or resting-state to naturalistic stimuli, when assessing the performance of EEG-based biometric systems.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; emotion; fingerprints; naturalistic stimuli; spectral analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33212929 PMCID: PMC7698321 DOI: 10.3390/s20226565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Features vector for offset (upper panel) and exponent (lower panel) computed for a single video clip extracted from the DREAMER dataset. Rows represent subjects and columns represent electroencephalogram (EEG) channels.
Figure 2Scatter-plots represent the equal error rates (EERs) for each experimental condition for the offset parameter.
Statistical analysis for the 1/f offset parameter.
| 1/f Offset Parameter—Wilcoxon Rank Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval | |||||||
| Statistic |
| Lower | Upper | Cohen’s d | |||
| Baseline | Videos_start | Wilcoxon W | 171 | <0.00001 | 0.0345 | 0.05941 | 2.022 |
| Baseline | Videos_end | Wilcoxon W | 165 | 0.00011 | 0.0267 | 0.06013 | 1.349 |
| Videos_start | Videos_end | Wilcoxon W | 76 | 0.70188 | −0.0222 | 0.00955 | −0.192 |
Figure 3Scatter-plots represent the EERs for each experimental condition for the exponent parameter.
Statistical analysis for the 1/f exponent parameter.
| 1/f Exponent Parameter—Wilcoxon Rank Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval | |||||||
| Statistic |
| Lower | Upper | Cohen’s d | |||
| Baseline | Videos_start | Wilcoxon W | 171 | <0.00001 | 0.0375 | 0.0636 | 2.174 |
| Baseline | Videos_end | Wilcoxon W | 166 | 0.00008 | 0.027 | 0.0602 | 1.371 |
| Videos_start | Videos_end | Wilcoxon W | 70 | 0.51354 | −0.0240 | 0.0101 | −0.250 |
Figure 4Scatter-plots represent the EERs for each experimental condition for the beta frequency band.
Statistical analysis for the beta band.
| Beta Band—Wilcoxon Rank Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval | |||||||
| Statistic |
| Lower | Upper | Cohen’s d | |||
| Baseline | Video_start | Wilcoxon W | 168 | 0.00004 | 0.03658 | 0.0617 | 1.73 |
| Baseline | Video_end | Wilcoxon W | 169 | 0.00002 | 0.04634 | 0.0839 | 1.85 |
| Video_start | Video_end | Wilcoxon W | 129 | 0.05994 | −0.00142 | 0.0357 | 0.479 |