Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-00289-7

RESEARCH Open Access

A comparative analysis of machine learning

methods for emotion recognition using EEG
and peripheral physiological signals
Vikrant Doma and Matin Pirouz*

*Correspondence:
mpirouz@ieee.org Abstract
Department of Computer Emotion recognition using brain signals has the potential to change the way we
Science, California State
University, Fresno, 5241 N identify and treat some health conditions. Difficulties and limitations may arise in
Maple Ave, Fresno, CA 93740, general emotion recognition software due to the restricted number of facial expression
USA triggers, dissembling of emotions, or among people with alexithymia. Such triggers
are identified by studying the continuous brainwaves generated by human brain.
Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals from the brain give us a more diverse insight on
emotional states that one may not be able to express. Brainwave EEG signals can reflect
the changes in electrical potential resulting from communications networks between
neurons. This research involves analyzing the epoch data from EEG sensor channels
and performing comparative analysis of multiple machine learning techniques [namely
Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor, Linear Discriminant Analysis, Logis-
tic Regression and Decision Trees each of these models] were tested with and without
principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction. Grid search was also
utilized for hyper-parameter tuning for each of the tested machine learning models
over Spark cluster for lowered execution time. The DEAP Dataset was used in this study,
which is a multimodal dataset for the analysis of human affective states. The predic-
tions were based on the labels given by the participants for each of the 40 1-min long
excerpts of music. music. Participants rated each video in terms of the level of arousal,
valence, like/dislike, dominance and familiarity. The binary class classifiers were trained
on the time segmented, 15 s intervals of epoch data, individually for each of the 4
classes. PCA with SVM performed the best and produced an F1-score of 84.73% with
98.01% recall in the 30th to 45th interval of segmentation. For each of the time seg-
ments and “a binary training class” a different classification model converges to a better
accuracy and recall than others. The results prove that different classification models
must be used to identify different emotional states.
Keywords: Emotion recognition, Multi-channel EEG, Machine learning, Classification

Introduction
Emotion classification requires a study of various factors and variables including com-
mon sense emotions of happiness or anger with varying degrees. These qualities and
intensities are second nature to humankind and their detection by facial recognition

© The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 2 of 21

software has proven to be difficult and costly [1].

An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a widely used neuro-imaging modality which
can measure the potential changes in voltages caused by the firing of electrical
impulses of neurons, detected on the scalp and captured up by a device containing a
pattern of electrodes. EEG signals tend are categorized based on their frequency and
divided into five major bands: delta band from 0.5 to 3 Hz, theta band from 4 to 7 Hz,
alpha band from 8 to 13 Hz, beta band 14 to 30 Hz, and gamma band greater than 30
Hz. Each of these spectra are generally associated with some kind of activity like mov-
ing fingers, sleeping, active thinking, or problem solving. EEG is used in brain com-
puter interfaces (BCI), which allow the human subject and computer to communicate
with no contact. Applications of such research are gaining popularity to the field of
affective computing, which aims to understand the states of the human mind [2]. Cur-
rently various EEG based BCI paradigms are well known [3].
Emotion is omnipresent and an essential aspect of human existence [1]. A sub-
ject’s behavior can heavily influence their way of communication, and directly affects
their daily activities. Emotions also perform a vital role in everyday communications.
Simply saying ‘ok’ can have a different meaning depending on context which could
convey remorse, sadness, anger, happiness, or even disgust; however, the full mean-
ing can be understood using facial expressions, hand gestures, and other non-verbal
communication means. Research in the field of BCI for spotting feelings by comput-
ers has experienced an exponential growth over the past two decades. An example
of this research is using EEG sensor data to detect emotions [4], alongside using face
markers or a fusion of these with body signals like pupil dilation [5]. Measuring emo-
tion directly from the brain is a novel approach, and in theory can eliminate subject
deceptions or inability to show their emotions due to disabilities, suggesting that fea-
ture extraction from EEG signals are more easily distinguishable.
This research aims to apply a variety of classic machine learning algorithms and
compare them based on p-value, minimum error, accuracy, precision, and f-score, to
further enhance the performance with dimensionality reduction and to obtain hidden
information as suggested in [6, 7]. Classic machine learning algorithms tend to be
outperformed by artificial neural networks (ANN) and deep neural networks (DNN)
in specific applications, as they obtain better accuracy. Three different classes of posi-
tive, neutral, and negative were used to narrow down the degree of each sample.
The following are some of the technical contributions to the field of of neuroscience
and computer science as a result of this project:

• Datasets pre-processed and combined into a new large dataset.

• Workflow methodology is easily reproducible.
• Identification of the best classification algorithm to be used for each emotion.
• Accuracy of each classification model for EEG data.
• Time segmentation approach of data yields better features for classifiers.
• Analysis and visualizations of dataset “emotion analysis using eeg, physiological
and video signals” (DEAP) dataset.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 3 of 21

It is interesting to note that the DEAP dataset is an aggregation of a variety of data as dif-
ferent sampling rates were used in data collection and different types of tests were con-
ducted. Aggregating this data into 1 comprehensive dataset shows the large volume of
the data, especially when the face recordings are added to the dataset. It is ensured that
this raw data cannot be tampered with as files are made to be read only, furthermore the
collection of data was done 5 times for each test to ensure trustworthy data.
The following sections in the paper explains the detailed workflow and organization
of the research conducted. Related works/literature review is explained in “Related
work” section. The algorithms, methodologies in a broad sense are explained in sec-
tion “Preliminaries” section. The proposed step wise implementation of the algorithm
and with the subroutine explanations and utility is outlined in “Methods” section. The
datasets descriptions are seen in “Data” section. The “Experimental setup” defines the
recommended hardware and software used for replicating the results. The “Experimen-
tal results” section, discusses the experimental results. Concluding remarks and future
research are made in “Conclusion” section.

Related work
Research being carried out in the field of brain computer interface gearing more towards
BCI applications [3]. The EEG research community is diversifying their applications into
many different subdomains. EEG signals are normally used for detecting stress as seen
in [8, 9], and they suggest a strong correlation between stress and EEG signals. Koelstra
et al. [10] used Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) to remove artifacts and perform clean-
ing. HHT is a time-frequency analysis method, which extracts the intrinsic mode func-
tions (IMFs) that produce well-behaved Hilbert transforms from the signals that have
been extracted, using an empirical mode decomposition. With the Hilbert transforma-
tion, the IMF gives instantaneous frequencies as a function of time.
Their use of hierarchical Support Vector Machines (SVM) achieved much better
results than a linear SVM, resulting in an accuracy of 89%. Taking into account multiple
different parameters is necessary, even when considering classic machine learning algo-
rithms. Their findings inspired us to look into the use of cross-validation within a grid
search and apply it to our experiments. Liao et al. [9] made use of Fast Fourier Transform
and deep learning with back propagation to figure out the best way to sooth stress, but
only obtained a 75% precision. In the field of motor imagery, EEG signals can be utilized
to operate robotic arms [11]. Fakhruzzaman et al. [12] explained how BCI can identify
and distinguish brain waves of people when they are performing different tasks. Their
implementation was based on an automative EPOC to test out if the classifier “SVM”
can distinguish between two major training activities: moving the left hand and moving
the right foot, and four more combinations of the same two actions coupled with the
addition of noise, like nodding or moving right foot along with left hand movement.
It is also observed that faces can be seen even when there are none, suggesting EEG
can be used while seeing optical illusions [13] and also to find out the more active areas
of the brain, detecting early visual processing (before one can think subconsciously).
P100 and N170 perceptual signatures are found to be of much more importance than
others. In motor imagery, deep learning has been used as seen in [14], which proposed a
high-level goal of finding robust representations from EEG data, that would be invariant

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 4 of 21

to inter and intra-subject differences and to inherent noise associated with EEG data
collection. Specifically, rather than representing low-level EEG features as a vector, they
transformed the data into a sequence of topology-preserving multi-spectral images (EEG
“movie”), as opposed to classic EEG analysis techniques that disregard such spatial info.
EEG signals are also widely seen in sleep pattern analysis as in [15, 16], which allowed
for better detection and identification of situational causes where subjects had better or
worse sleep cycles. This research lead to various sleep improvement mobile applications
that help people develop different exercises to get the optimal sleep, an interesting note
is that Convolutional Neural Networks were used to extract time-invariant features,
and bidirectional-Long Short-Term Memory in order to automatically predict the sleep
transition stages From EEG epoch data. They used two public sleep datasets and used
a two-step training algorithm. The first step involved training the model to learn filters
to extract time-invariant features from the raw uni-channel EEG epochs. The second
step involved sequence residual learning, useful for encoding the stage transition rules
of sleep from a sequence of EEG epochs in the extracted features. It is interesting to note
that CNNs require images as raw data and to convert EEG signals to images of 2D pro-
jection map, or azimutul 2D projection as explained in [17].
Another recent classifier is ICLabel [18], which is open source and runs on MatLab.
ICLabel improves upon existing classifiers by suggesting approaches that result in an
increased accuracy of the computed label estimates and enhancing its computational
efficiency. Their classifier outperforms the existing automated IC component classifica-
tion method for all measured IC categories while increasing the speed of computation
speed by nearly 10 times. More complicated methods involving Monte Carlo simulations
were seen in [19], where a comparison on three different machine learning techniques
were performed for detecting epileptic seizure risks and further goes on to determine
if 1-h screening is more feasible, to identify patients with less seizure risk (less than 5%
seizures risk in 48 h). The different methods they used were the elastic net regression
(EN), Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC), and multicenter
with a dataset of 7716 continuous EEGs (cEEG), and neural networks and sparse lin-
ear integer model (RiskSLIM). These methods performed relatively similar in terms of
evaluation metrics, but RiskSlim using 2HELPS2B achieves slightly better results. EEG
signals are also seen to help prevent seizures and seizure type prediction [18, 19]. These
articles discussed how data collected from intracranial EEG-based monitoring systems
can be used to predict epilepsy episodes in patients up to an hour earlier. They have used
a number of different classification techniques with a wide variety of features from the
dataset, both univariate and bivariate for their prediction models.
Many other papers have explained various degrees of success, ranging from 50 to
85% through the use of different classification techniques. Further improvement in
accuracy was seen in Belakhdar et al. [20] gave a maximum accuracy of 86.5% during
the detection of drowsiness. Additionally SVM and ANN were used in comparison
after performing fast Fourier transformations to get vector of 9 features, suggesting
that ANN though more robust did not provide drastic accuracy improvements. In
contrast the work by Li et al. [21] suggests that for the WAY-EEG-GAL dataset, an
approach based on AlexNet works better giving an accuracy of 96%. However the
approach used cannot exactly suggest that neural nets work better since the data

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 5 of 21

preparation technique used was tailored more towards feature extraction before
classification. An algorithm based on entropy called wavelet packet decomposition
was seen in [22] which improved the accuracy of SVM to 87–93% for the sample
subjects tested. Promising results were also seen in Jin et al. [23] which suggested
that a combination of FFT, PCA, and SVM gave results of nearly 90%. Therefore in
conclusion the accuracy of any model is highly reliant on the feature extraction stage
and not necessarily on how complex of a classification technique used is as implied
in [21]. Thus reliable accuracy and recall can even be achieved with classification
techniques.

Preliminaries
Principle component analysis
PCA is a common dimensional reduction technique used to minimize the number of
training features by grouping the features together. In doing so, it maintains the origi-
nal feature information, thus retaining trends and patterns. Dimensionality reduction
is a technique that summarizes features by projecting the high dimensional axes onto
principle components with the goal of finding the best stigmatization. This minimizes
the computational cost and the error rate caused by unnecessary features.
The main goal behind using PCA is that it speeds up model training time and in
most cases improves accuracy [24]. The algorithmic approach for PCA is follows: The
first step is to split our dataset into 2 parts, rather separate the class labels from the
rest of the features. i.e 8046 columns are taken into account as features to be mini-
mized ‘d’. Next mean for every dimension of the dataset is computed, followed by the
evaluating the covariance matrix. The covariance matrix. The formulae: 2∗(n−2) n!
! gives
the required number of different covariance needed to be calculated, where n repre-
sents the number features under consideration. For n variables the covariance matrix
C will be of the order n × n and (i,j)th element of C is given by
i=0
(xi − x̄)(yi − ȳ)
Ci,j = cov(x, y) = n
(1)
(n − 1)

The next step is to compute the eigen vectors and the eigenvalues. This step requires
evaluating the determinant of our n × n matix to 0 i.e det(C −  ∗ I) where I is an iden-
tity matrix. Solving this equation for  we get the eigen values and then the correspond-
ing eigen vectors. The next step involves sorting the eigen vectors by decreasing eigen
values and selecting the k eigen vectors with the largest eigen values to form a d × K
dimensional matrix W. The eigenvectors with the lowest eigenvalues give the least infor-
mation about the data distribution, and are usually dropped. After sorting and selecting
the top 20 eigen vectors our feature space reduced to a 20 dimensional feature subspace.
The final step involves transforming the samples to the new subspace. This is done by the
equation y = W ′ ∗ x where W’ is the transpose of matrix W.
Therefore the final number of 20 vector features were obtained using PCA which
optimized the accuracy of our model by 6% on average. During experimentation the
highest explained variance by a single variable was found to be 43%; here, and the
lowest explained variance was found to be 0.04%.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 6 of 21

Naive Bayes
The Naive Bayes classifier assumes that the presence of a selected feature in class is unre-
lated to the presence of the other feature belonging to other classes. Even if these options
depend upon one another or upon the existence of the opposite options, all of those
properties contribute to the chance [25]. Naive Bayes is particularly suitable for when
the dimensionality is higher. Therefore, we are testing this classifier in the experiment.
Naive Bayes model is significantly helpful for wide sets with many attributes [26]. Along
with its simplicity, Naive Bayes model may surpass even extremely subtle classification
techniques.
The naive Bayes equation is explained below

P(B|A) P(A)
P(A|B) = (2)
P(B)

Naive Bayes equation can be extended to real-valued attributes, most typically by

assuming a normal distribution. Different functions do not estimate the distribution of
the info, but relies on the estimation of the mean and therefore the variance from the
information. The Naive Bayes algorithm requires a joint probability P(A,B). This is the
probability of both A and B occuring given as at the same time it must be considered
that the variables are independent of each other:

P(A|B) = P(A|B) ∗ P(B) (3)

 
1 −(xi − µy )2
P(xi |y) =  exp (4)
2π σy2 2σy2

Equation 2 represents the Gaussian Naive Bayes used here and the reason behind using
Gaussian Naive Bayes was due to the slight Gaussian distribution of the features.

Logistic regression
It is another classification algorithm available for both multi-class and binary class clas-
sification. Logistic Regression performs discrete categorization of sampled data, for a
binary class (pass or fail) within a decision boundary. The analogy between the linear
and logistic regression can be explained with the regression hypothesis

1
hθ (x) = T x) (5)
1 + e(−θ

hθ (x) = (−θ T x) (6)


θ0 + θ1 x1 + θ2 x2 + θ1 9x1 9 ≤ 0
f (z) =
1, otherwise (7)

where 3 represents the logistic regression hypothesis and 4 is the linear regression
hypotheses where theta represents the parameters. To determine the split between

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 7 of 21

classes, it is ideal to use all features, however with PCA we limit the features from 8064
to just 20 as seen in 5, where f(z) gives the class for the sample.

K‑nearest neighbor
When we perform classification using K-nearest neighbor (KNN), the algorithm is
essentially giving a way to extract the majority vote which decides whether the observa-
tion belongs to a certain K-similar instance. For this, in any dimensional space, Euclid-
ean distance is used. Since KNN is a non-parametric classification algorithm, it assigns
labels to previously un-sampled points, generally it has a lower efficiency as the size of
the data increases [27]; thus, further promoting the need for a feature decomposition
algorithm. The performance is fully-dependent on the value of k, as such the model was
created to test over the values of k, which was done through iterations above k-fold cross
validation from 0 to 5, where the values of k for KNN ranged from 2 to 50. This method-
ology was suggested as it is not easy to select a proper value of k theoretically, unless an
exhaustive search using expensive techniques is performed [25].

Support Vector Machines

Support Vector Machines (SVM) are supervised linear classification models which
makes use of hyperplanes (i.e. the plane of separation between classes). To sample the
data, EEG channel samples are plotted in space where the number axes determine the
different features. Separate categories of data are divided through a separation which is
as wide as viable. When training the model, the vector w and the bias b must be esti-
mated by the solution to a quadratic equation [12]. Hence, SVM can be implemented in
polynomial time, which makes it a p-complete problem.

wT xi + b ≥ 1 for xi ∈ CLASSA (8)

wT xi + b ≤ 1 for xi ∈ CLASSB (9)

where b represents a two-dimensional plane, the margin of separation is expressed as

follows

yi � w T x + b � (10)

Considering only two dimensions, the hyperplane equation will be for each vector (6).
This simplifies the learning problem of the SVM by transforming it into an optimization
problem where w 2
represents the margin of separation stated by
2
maximize Max(w) �w�
w (11)
subject to W · xi + b ≥ 1 if yi = 1

2
maximize Max(w) �w�
w (12)
subject to W · xi + b ≤ −1 for i = 1 to N

Using these two equations, we have the following simplified equation as given below:

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 8 of 21

n
 
1
Max[0, 1 − yi [w · xi − b]] +  � w �2 (13)
n
i=0

Decision trees
A decision tree is a kind of hierarchical class selection support tool that uses a tree-like
graph or model of choices and their attainable consequences [25] (i.e. bifurcation based
on the decision taken at each level) together with accident outcomes, cost, and utility. A
decision tree a technique which only uses the conditional management statements for
class separation. A decision tree could be a flowchart-like structure where every internal
node represents a “test” on an attribute (e.g. whether or not a coin flip comes up heads
or tails). Every branch represents the result of the check, and every leaf node represents
a category label (the decision is made once all attributes are computed). The paths from
root to leaf represent classification rules. Decision Trees are primarily based learning
algorithms that are among the simplest and mostly-used supervised learning strategies .
Tree primarily based strategies empower prophetical models with high accuracy, stabil-
ity and simple interpretation. In contrast to linear models, they map non-linear relation-
ships quite well. They are adaptable at determining any reasonably downside at hand
(classification or regression). Decision Tree classification algorithms are known as Clas-
sification and Regression Trees (CART) [3].

Parameter tuning
Sklearn is a Python library which contains a number of built-in machine learning algo-
rithms. However, in certain situations we cannot accurately predict or find the best pos-
sible way to select these parameters as the parameters can range from unique solvers, to
value of ‘k’, to gamma to kernel names, and more, each of which varies according to the
classification model being used. For this, it was necessary to use an exhaustive search
method, called Grid search. The algorithm for parameter tuning is as follows:

Algorithm 1: Parameter tuning using grid search

1 Input: hyperparameters Dictionary
2 Output: best paramters key : value
3 import dataset
4 for i ∈ values of each key ∈ parameterDictionary do
5 for 50 fold cross validation do
6 get max accuracy value
7 if i > P reviousP arams then
8 i > P reviousP arams = i
9 end
10 end
11 end

Data
The “DEAPdataset” is an EEG signal repository freely available, found at [10], for emo-
tion analysis. This repository contains a multi modal dataset which can be used for ana-
lyzing human brain states. The raw data set contains 32 Biosemi bdf data format files
having 48 channels which were recorded at 512 Hz. This dataset is a result of integrating

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 9 of 21

3 database recordings at distinct locations namely, Geneva Switzerland, Twente Nether-

lands, London United Kingdom. This shows the variety of the data as different sampling
rates were used and different types of tests were conducted. Aggregating this data into
1 comprehensive dataset shows the large volume of the data, especially when the face
recordings are used for predictive purposes. It is ensured that this raw data cannot be
tampered with as files are made to be read only, furthermore the collection of data was
done 5 times for each test to ensure trustworthy data. Each of the two zip folders contain
32 participants each with the data stored in a 3D matrix representation (40 × 40 × 8064)
representing video/trial × channel × data, with the numeric class value labels saved on
the same file as a 2D matrix. After reformatting the data during data preparation the
updated dataset contained 204,800 × 8065. A total of 11.2 GB worth of sampled EEG
data with an additional 15 GB raw face recording data is available for reference.
The metadata folder contains 4 important metadata files describing the way the data
was collected and the ratings they gave during the experiment after each of the 32 par-
ticipants had 40 min-long sessions. “Wheel slice” was an important column which tells
us exactly what the subject is feeling at that particular instant. The integer values for this
range from 1 to 16. Similarly, the 32 participants were prompted to rate their feelings
based on the honor system in terms of 1–9, representing their degree of arousal, valence,
familiarity, and dominance.
Along with the raw data, the dataset includes a preprocessing script, which is available
in either Matlab and pickled Python formats. This script contains the subject data in two
arrays, one for data and the other for labels (arousal, liking, dominance). This data ena-
bles applying classification algorithms without worrying about the preprocessing phase.
This research uses the pre-processed version to compare the initial accuracy of classic
classification algorithms. EEG data collected from 32 patients can be read by using the
pickle library in Python.

Methods
Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is the first step in understanding the type of data that
is processed along with how the data can be used for developing a solid foundation on
which we can build prediction models. Here, one creates a sense of the information that
can be used to fire queries one wishes to raise to border their understanding. Similarly,
one can control the knowledge sources to urge the answers they seek. The basic idea is to
perform an analysis that can help in deciding what techniques are to be used to process,
manipulate, normalize and extract information from the data that can help in finding
better approaches while implementing predictive models.
Since the “DEAP dataset” contains the four distinct ratings for each of the 40 videos,
it is possible to visualize how exactly the distribution of the ratings are, this also facili-
tated the detection of any biases towards any particular rating. In this case, a smaller bias
would help achieve better accuracy classification, as larger bias makes machine learning
models sway to predict the biased class.
After reading the pickled data into different files containing the encoded data from
the numpy arrays using one hot encoding representing the different class values, it is
possible to perform different binary class classifications for each of the four distinct
categories of valence, arousal, dominance and liking. The subjects rated each of the

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 10 of 21

60 s video based on these criteria on a scale of 1 to 9. Therefore, one hot encoding

was used to round all values below 5 to 0 and those above the threshold of 5 to 1,
thus allowing a binary classifier. The classes were labeled as ‘unhappy’, ‘happy/joyful’,
‘calm/board’, ‘stimulated/excited’, ‘submissive’, ‘empowered’, ‘thumbs up’, ‘thumbs
down’ representing both the positive and negative emotion of that criteria. The fol-
lowing are the different machine learning techniques used, once the one hot encoding
was complete
The DEAP dataset [7] gives the preprocessed data in the form of a saved pickle file.
Loading the file gives two different arrays named labels and data. The labels were
auto encoded into four different files, each representing an emotion. The data was
extracted separately for each subject and stored the EEG epoch channel data in from
each subject into a single file called “collected_features.dat”. The labels for the classes
and the actual data were separated from each other in different files. This separation
was performed before cross validation and limited the number of features to 20 when
selecting each of the classification models. Grid search then gave a detailed report of
the classification accuracy, f-score, precision, and recall. This approach yielded results
within the range of 50 to 65%.
This approach was done on a preliminary basis in order to get baseline results for the
modification and optimization phase further ahead. According to the DEAP dataset, the
epoch data was segmented into 60 s trials, thus it is not very clear where the correct
emotion may arise within this 60 s of data. One hypothesis is that within the first few
seconds, the subject experienced feelings prior to watching the music, i.e continuing the
same state of emotion before the trial. Similarly, the last few seconds could provide much
better features as the subject can now anticipate the events in the video. Thus, leading to
the question of segmenting the data into 15sec ∗ 4partitions corresponding to 1 subject
trial. These segments were uploaded to the google cloud clustered architecture. With
the help of joblib a Apache spark backend library, a distributed GridSearch was done
over the spark cluster. The number of jobs created for each machine learning algorithm
was 3. This boosted the execution time. Each segment was tested separately to check for
accuracy, f-score, precision and recall for each of the 4 classes. Assuming that if, any one
segment shows better results than the others then our hypothesis is that the segment of
epoch data giving these results is related to an important part of the trial video which
best brings out the corresponding emotional state.
Apart from this, the objective of PCA was to minimize the features. This is due to
the fact that even though all the channel data from each of the 40 channels were used,
PCA did not seem to be very effective because of the fluctuation in the epoch signals.
Therefore, a techniques adapted from [28, 29] was performed to calculate the features
rather than the raw signal epoch data. These features include mean, mode, median as
F1, F2 and F3 respectively; as well as the range, largest-smallest element within the
segmented range as F4, F5, F6 variance respectively. PCA then selected the features
that were taken from the result of the co-variance matrix, i.e the higher weighted ele-
ments. This approach achieved better results, as expected and tested by the literature.
It is important to note that such modification is done before using any classification
techniques. Grid search and k-fold cross-validation helped in fine tuning the param-
eters to get the best possible results. At this stage, five different classifiers were tested.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 11 of 21

Setup
The experimentation done with the data sets mentioned in “Methods” section only,
thus additional external hardware setup was not required although a spark cluster on
google cloud was utilised to distribute the workload. This was done using parallel_back-
end function on the Joblib Apache Spark Backend. Setup seen in [30], since streaming
raw epoch data from patients is not within the scope of this research. software packages
including Anaconda 2019.03 Release for python 3.6, pyspark version 2.4.4 and EEGlab
toolbox for Matlab rev. 9.0.7.6. The python libraries used were matplotlib, numpy, pan-
das, pytorch, sklearn v 0.21, to name a few. These libraries were installed on the conda
environment using “conda install” and “pip install”. the “.mat” files from “DEAP” were
read and exported as csv files through EEGlab The following results obtained in “Setup”
section, were produced on Ubuntu 18.01 using 7th Generation intel@ Core i7 processor
with 8GB RAM.

Experimental results
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 show the Gaussian distribution of the ratings of the different emotions
of the 32 subjects for each of the 40 videos. It is observed that the normal distribution
is symmetric around 5, suggesting that, most of the subjects have mixed feelings about
each of the videos. If the data had anti-Gaussian skew towards ratings 1 and 9 as seen
in Fig. 4, then a binary classification model would achieve much better results, particu-
larly if one hot encoding variables were to be taken at the extremes. Another important
observation is that test subjects were more likely to give integer value rating, thus the
spikes at integer values.
The plot of the average of ratings for each class by 32 individuals is given in Fig. 5. This
graph also demonstrates a comparatively linear relationship between valence and liking,
which can be explained as positive emotions generally result in a better liking rating as
suggested in [31, 32]. It is observed that the sum total of “liking” is directly proportional
to “valence” and decreases with subsequent video trials, and as such the “valence” also
goes on decreasing. Other emotions rating do not show a clear pattern in Fig. 5, leading
to the assumption that the other two emotions “arousal” and “dominance” are more of
a personal preference and vary from one test subject to the next. By taking the average

Fig. 1 Gaussian distribution of frequency ratings of valence, for all 32 × 40 trials

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 12 of 21

Fig. 2 Gaussian distribution of frequency ratings of arousal, for all 32 × 40 trials

Fig. 3 Gaussian distribution of frequency ratings of dominance, for all 32 × 40 trials

Fig. 4 Gaussian distribution of frequency ratings of liking, for all 32 × 40 trials

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 13 of 21

Fig. 5 Pie chart of emotional ratings of subjects watching video #1

ratings for each video, based on the subjects’ emotion rating, a singular pie chart for
each video is provided. Each pie chart suggested how much a video garnered positive or
negative emotion, the pie chart was split into 25% portions, each extracted from a single
emotion. A rating above 4.5 would give a positive emotion seen in blue, otherwise the
emotion would be negative as seen in red, but each emotion and its counterpart contrib-
uted to the percentage of 25% [33].
Initially, while utilizing classic machine learning without PCA, we found that the
results sub-optimal hovering in the range of 50 to 65%. As described earlier, such result
is only slightly better than random chance, and since the designed system took in all
40 of the channels of the epoch data as the features, the discrepancy and errors were
more, as other channels did not change much throughout the 60 s videos. According
to [34, 35], it is suggested that by using PCA they were able to find the channels that gave
the best possible results, which also is aligned with the channels “F3, C3, F4, C4, AF3,
PO4, CP1” as crucial in obtaining the best possible results. These channels indicated
that the bottom left hemisphere of the brain was responsible for triggering emotional
states. With these raw channel data values and their corresponding statistical measures
like mean, mode, median, range, largest-smallest element within the segmented range,
and variance, the machine learning models produced much better results, as the fea-
tures were more effective in expressing brain activity caused by emotions, illustrated
in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. The improved results hovered in the range of 55 to 75%. This was
achieved by slicing the 60-s epoch data into 15-s epochs, which resulted in an improve-
ment in the accuracy of all models and as an added benefit, the precision and f1 score
also achieved more promising results.
Some important result metrics that were tested throughout the experiment were accu-
racy, recall, precision and f1-score. Accuracy is defined as the ratio of the total number

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 14 of 21

Table 1 Results of performance metrics for valence classification

Time Classifier Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-score (%)

0 to 15 s SVM 54.53 55.52 92.91 69.27

LR 56.50 57.42 83.81 68.17
DT 52.98 55.93 69.40 61.97
KNN 53.90 57.93 62.12 59.95
LDA 55.00 64.48 65.77 65.30
15 to 30 s SVM 63.34 63.34 100 77.67
LR 62.17 63.42 96.67 76.60
DT 64.06 64.063 100% 78.09
KNN 55.55 63.67 71.21 67.24
LDA 57.34 67.72 69.79 68.72
30 to 45 s SVM 63.43 63.43 100 77.62
LR 63.12 64.05 96.67 77.05
DT 61.60 64.86 100 78.09
KNN 70.41 70.20 93.23 83.91
LDA 56.25 67.87 66.05 67.05
45 to 60 s SVM 63.59 63.35 99.50 77.73
LR 63.12 64.05 96.67 77.05
DT 64.60 64.66 100 78.09
KNN 57.68 64.04 77.49 70.11
LDA 56.25 68.85 64.18 66.34

Table 2 Results of performance metrics for arousal classification

Time Classifier Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-score (%)

0 to 15 s SVM 56.86 56.86 98.91 72.87

LR 59.33 59.52 95.95 73.42
DT 55.48 57.49 83.24 68.07
KNN 52.95 59.95 63.15 61.05
LDA 55.62 55.77 97.12 70.45
15 to 30 s SVM 63.39 63.88 99.56 77.87
LR 64.54 64.53 99.26 78.19
DT 63.35 65.10 92.78 76.38
KNN 59.81 63.91 85.60 73.31
LDA 63.12 63.32 99.50 77.39
30 to 45 s SVM 73.75 73.77 99.50 84.73
LR 63.82 64.39 97.41 77.53
DT 64.06 64.06 100 78.09
KNN 58.88 63.73 83.02 72.11
LDA 63.28 63.46 99.26 77.42
45 to 60 s SVM 63.59 63.67 99.50 77.66
LR 64.82 64.49 77.05 77.95
DT 64.53 64.44 99.96 78.26
KNN 63.35 69.35 99.75 77.66
LDA 63.12 63.32 99.50 77.39

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 15 of 21

Table 3 Results of performance metrics for dominance classification

Time Classifier Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-score (%)

0 to 15 s SVM 64.53 64.52 100 78.09

LR 64.30 64.42 97.00 77.42
DT 50.62 68.73 37.50 47.87
KNN 59.33 67.93 70.02 69.47
LDA 57.81 57.48 99.09 72.78
15 to 30 s SVM 67.65 67.65 100 80.07
LR 68.36 69.56 96.95 81.01
DT 65.01 70.58 85.54 77.30
KNN 63.59 70.20 83.05 76.86
LDA 67.5 67.77 99.06 80.05
30 to 45 s SVM 67.18 67.72 99.55 77.66
LR 68.08 69.66 96.85 80.85
DT 67.84 71.20 97.50 79.99
KNN 62.64 69.85 81.69 75.31
LDA 66.56 67.35 98.96 79.88
45 to 60 s SVM 66.25 67.30 100 79.62
LR 67.73 69.47 94.94 80.22
DT 71.73 69.73 98.40 82.17
KNN 63.12 68.03 86.45 76.14
LDA 66.67 67.40 98.34 79.99

Table 4 Results of performance metrics for liking classification

Time Classifier Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-score (%)

0 to 15 s SVM 64.37 64.37 96.96 78.27

LR 66.43 66.56 98.56 80.42
DT 61.12 66.40 85.00 72.80
KNN 62.24 67.96 81.36 74.06
LDA 64.45 64..56 99.51 78.95
15 to 30 s SVM 67.76 67.76 100 80.44
LR 68.32 69.33 96.77 81.71
DT 68.05 68.07 100 81.01
KNN 65.48 69.25 88.54 77.76
LDA 67.03 67.29 99.06 80.15
30 to 45 s SVM 71.51 70.45 99.76 83.48
LR 69.54 69.08 99.30 81.48
DT 68.08 68.08 100 81.01
KNN 74.28 77.49 98.05 86.57
LDA 67.50 67.50 99.53 80.45
45 to 60 s SVM 67.18 68.18 100 80.07
LR 68.08 68.05 98.95 80.85
DT 67.78 68.09 99.30 80.79
KNN 63.12 68.03 86.45 76.16
LDA 67.34 67.34 99.76 80.40

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 16 of 21

of correct predictions achieved by a model to the measure of total predictions done,

regardless of correct or incorrect predictions. Precision is given as

TP
Precision = (14)
TP + FP

where TP stands for true positives, i.e. how many true correct predictions were actually
done and FP stands for false positives, i.e. how many predictions were incorrectly classi-
fied as belonging to that class, which could also be explained as the incorrectly predicted
positives measure. The recall score is given as follows

TP
Recall = (15)
TP + FN

Also called as sensitivity, or the true positive rate ratio of correct predictions to the total
number of positives examples. The last measure is F1 score which combines precision
and recall, a good F1 score suggests a low false positives and low false negatives. A per-
fect F1 score will be 1 while the model is a total failure at 0. The formulae for F1 score is
given as follows

precision ∗ recall
F1 = 2 ∗ (16)
precision + recall

Thus higher the percent values for the performance metrics indicates a better model.
The performance measures increase as long as the number of the samples that are cho-
sen are correctly classified rise as well. Here in this research we are looking for a high
accuracy and F1 score, which can help others know which algorithms would be the best
for experimenting on human subjects. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 present the performance meas-
ures obtained after running each binary classifier through four segments of the 60 s
of the music video. Through general observation, the initial time from 0 to 15 s for all
binary classification models experienced a lower accuracy range of 50 to 66% followed
by 15 to 30 s then by 45 to 60 s, and finally 30 to 45 s. An in-depth analysis of Table 1, 2,
3, 4 demonstrates that segmenting the data is useful in obtaining better results as well
as in finding out which sections of the recorded data have the most brain activity cor-
responding to the emotions. Of all the results, Table 4 represents better results. KNN
resulted in an accuracy of 74.25% as the best possible result obtained among all model
and their parameters. Grid search was able to converge with the best parameters being
leaf size: 1, n nearest neighbor: 10, weights: distance. The recall, precision, and F1 score
for theses parameters were much larger with the recall score being 86.57%. Similarly for
SVM, which achieved an accuracy of 71.51% and the F1 score of 83.48% in the same split
of epoch data, the best possible parameters were found to be a polynomial kernel with
degree at 3 and gamma at 0.16. In all Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, the best parameters were achieved
by grid search. Logistic Regression converged with penalty being l1 and the inverse
regularization strength was found to be 1. Decision trees also performed well, with a
maximum accuracy reaching 68% and an F1 score being 77%. For decision trees the best
accuracy and recall was max depth being 3 and the minimum split samples were 10. An
important point to be noted is that the recall scores are high ranging from 85 to 100%
due to correctly predicted emotion among the positive and negative emotional states,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 17 of 21

however all F1 scores suffered a low precision suggesting that among all the subjects
who had a positive emotion, the number of subjects that were correctly labeled with a
positive emotion was less ranging from the low 60 s to the low 70 s.
Through careful observation, it is observed that KNN, SVM, LR, and LDA performed
nearly the same, with the exception that LR and LDA were more consistent with their
results and did not vary much with partitioning the data. Segmenting the data and using
PCA did help accomplish higher accuracy as without either, each machine learning
model performed better than a random selection. However, if we were to choose the
best model, Logistic regression had the best overall performance. It is interesting to note
that classification of “valence” and “arousal” was more difficult than “dominance” and
“liking”, which is aligned with the literature [36, 37] (Figs. 6, 7).

Discussions
The motivation behind performing the comparative analysis was to check if it is possi-
ble to find a correct combination of features, parameters, and pre-processing techniques
that can achieve comparable results with more complex techniques. However, as illus-
trated in the experiments, this may not always be the case. More complicated machine
learning techniques based on signal processing methods achieve better results. How-
ever, the results achieved a maximum of 86% F1-score with an execution time of 2 min
for each binary class classification for the entire 60 s trial, running on a workstation with
Intel(R) i7 7700 CPU at 2.81 GHz. In Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, Naive Bayes results are not pro-
vided as the results were lower than our baseline being completely random selection.
SVM performed the better for liking and arousal. The grid search for optimal parameters
on SVM resulted in a polynomial kernel, gamma value 0.01 and the marginal separation

Fig. 6 Pie chart of emotional ratings of subjects watching video #1

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 18 of 21

Fig. 7 Distribution of total summation of ratings taken from 32 subjects for each of the 40 videos, where the
different colors representing the 4 binary classes

parameter “C” was 10. KNN performed the best in liking and valence. Grid search for
KNN converged with the algorithm as the number of neighbors k was 8 and Manhattan
distance was used over euclidean and Jaccard distance. Logistic regression gave better
results in all cases only when “C” was 0.1 and only when the penalty used was l1. Deci-
sion trees did better in dominance classification although grid search resulted in max
depth of only 4. Since the classification model did not converge for LDA, meaning that
for each instant different parameters gave similarly less results. This can be attributed to
LDA being used mostly for document text classification, and thus here, cannot project
the data in a linear feature space. This indicates that the data is not linearly separable The
results produced were seen to be much better by 22% in terms of accuracy than Pasin
Israsen at el. [38], which suggests that our preprocessing method was much better in
extracting features than suggested in [38].
For future work, we plan on incorporating signal-processing techniques to further
improve the accuracy. Such techniques include Fast Fourier Transform, or wavelet trans-
form to convert the time series domain to frequency domain. Improvements in accuracy or
in efficiency could possibly be achieved with more data i.e by integrating more data sets like

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 19 of 21

SEED in combination with DEAP [39]. Introduction of complex Deep or Convolutional

Neural Networks may provide an added boost to accuracy as manual selection of features
is time-consuming and may not necessarily be the best approach. As neural networks auto
tune the features to provide the best results, the performance measures are expected to be
significantly more.

Conclusion
The main goal was to discover how neurophysiological mechanisms are able to drive an
individuals to experience emotion, and figure out which portions of the brain carry data
related to different emotions. This was achieved by performing classic machine leaning
techniques of SVM, Naive Bayes, Decision Trees, Logistic regression, KNN and LDA, each
of which achieved an accuracy of between 55 and 75% and an F1 score ranging from 70
to 86%. The classification techniques did not significantly outperform one another; how-
ever, the best result was achieved during KNN classification for “Liking”. in terms of highest
accuracy achieved the order of classification algorithms in descending order is: KNN, SVM,
Decision trees, Logistic Regression, and LDA. The statistical features of the channels and
raw channel data corresponding to the back left hemisphere of the brain was seen to have
more activity and thus, dimensional reduction was done alongside partitioning the epoch
channel data of 60 s into four 15-s chunks to get the best possible selection features, achiev-
ing an improved accuracy. Furthermore PySpark proved useful for distributing the work-
load of hyper parameter tuning. The experiments could further be scaled to account for
more emotions or for a combination of emotions without compromising F1 and accuracy.
The experimentation suggests that classic machine learning algorithms achieve reason-
able results and identify information regarding important epoch channels that are responsi-
ble for emotional states.

Abbreviations
EEG: Electroencephalogram; BCI: Brain computer interfaces; SVM: Support Vector Machines; KNN: K-nearest neighbor; EN:
Elastic net regression; CCEMRC: Critical care EEG monitoring research consortium; cEEG: Continuous EEGs; SLIM: Sparse
linear integer model; LDA: Linear discriminant analysis; CART​: Classification and regression trees; EDA: Exploratory data
analysis.

Acknowledgements
Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions
VD performed the primary literature review, ran the experiments, and drafted the manuscript. MP worked closely with
VD on the research and experiment design and result analysis as well as finalizing the manuscript. Both authors read and
approved the final manuscript.

Funding
This research has been partially funded by the College of Science and Mathematics, and a Grant from Amazon Web
Services.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used in this study is available through [10].

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 9 September 2019 Accepted: 17 February 2020

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 20 of 21

References
1. Daros A, Zakzanis K, Ruocco A. Facial emotion recognition in borderline personality disorder. Psychol Med.
2013;43:1953–63.
2. Schaaff K, Schultz T. Towards emotion recognition from electroencephalographic signals. In: 2009 3rd international
conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction and workshops. New York: IEEE; 2009. p. 1–6.
3. Bertsimas D, Dunn J, Paschalidis A. Regression and classification using optimal decision trees. In: 2017 IEEE MIT
undergraduate research technology conference (URTC). 2017. p. 1–4.
4. Jiahui Pan, Yuanqing Li, Jun Wang. An EEG-based brain–computer interface for emotion recognition. In: 2016 inter-
national joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). 2016. p. 2063–67.
5. Pantic M, Rothkrantz LJ. Automatic analysis of facial expressions: the state of the art. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach
Intell. 2000;22:1424–45.
6. Osisanwo F, et al. Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison. Int J Comput Trends
Technol. 2017;48:128–38.
7. Kalhori SRN, Zeng X-J. Evaluation and comparison of different machine learning methods to predict outcome of
tuberculosis treatment course. J Intell Learn Syst Appl. 2013;5:184.
8. Vanitha V, Krishnan P. Real time stress detection system based on EEG signals. 2016.
9. Liao C-Y, Chen R-C, Tai S-K. Emotion stress detection using eeg signal and deep learning technologies. In: 2018 IEEE
international conference on applied system invention (ICASI). New York: IEEE; 2018. p. 90–3.
10. Koelstra S, et al. Deap: a database for emotion analysis; using physiological signals. IEEE Trans Affect Comput.
2011;3:18–31.
11. Jia W et al. Electroencephalography (eeg)-based instinctive brain-control of a quadruped locomotion robot. In: 2012
annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society. New York: IEEE; 2012. p.
1777–81.
12. Fakhruzzaman MN, Riksakomara E, Suryotrisongko H. Eeg wave identification in human brain with emotiv epoc for
motor imagery. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;72:269–76.
13. Shariat S, Pavlovic V, Papathomas T, Braun A, Sinha P. Sparse dictionary methods for EEG signal classification in face
perception. In: 2010 IEEE international workshop on machine learning for signal processing. New York: IEEE; 2010. p.
331–6.
14. Tabar YR, Halici U. A novel deep learning approach for classification of EEG motor imagery signals. J Neural Eng.
2016;14:016003.
15. Chambon S, Thorey V, Arnal PJ, Mignot E, Gramfort A. A deep learning architecture to detect events in EEG signals
during sleep. In: 2018 IEEE 28th international workshop on machine learning for signal processing (MLSP). New York:
IEEE; 2018. p. 1–6.
16. Bashivan P, Rish I, Yeasin M, Codella N. Learning representations from EEG with deep recurrent-convolutional neural
networks. arXiv preprint arXiv​:1511.06448​. 2015.
17. Thomas J, et al. EEG classification via convolutional neural network-based interictal epileptiform event detection. In:
2018 40th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). New
York: IEEE; 2018. p. 3148–51.
18. Pion-Tonachini L, Kreutz-Delgado K, Makeig S. Iclabel: an automated electroencephalographic independent compo-
nent classifier, dataset, and website. NeuroImage. 2019;198:181–97.
19. Struck AF, et al. Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients. Ann Clin
Transl Neurol. 2019;67:1239–47.
20. Belakhdar I, Kaaniche W, Djmel R, Ouni B. A comparison between ANN and SVM classifier for drowsiness detection
based on single EEG channel. 2016. p. 443–6.
21. Li S, Feng H. EEG signal classification method based on feature priority analysis and CNN. 2019. p. 403–6.
22. Zhiwei L, Minfen S. Classification of mental task EEG signals using wavelet packet entropy and SVM. 2007. p. 906–9.
23. Jin J, Wang X, Wang B. Classification of direction perception EEG based on PCA-SVM, vol. 2. 2007. p. 116–20.
24. Song F, Guo Z, Mei D. Feature selection using principal component analysis. In: 2010 international conference on
system science, engineering design and manufacturing informatization, vol. 1. 2010. p. 27–30.
25. Pedregosa F, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–30.
26. Rajaguru H, Prabhakar SK. Non linear ica and logistic regression for classification of epilepsy from eeg signals. In:
2017 international conference of electronics, communication and aerospace technology (ICECA), vol. 1. 2017. p.
577–80.
27. Bablani A, Edla DR, Dodia S. Classification of EEG data using k-nearest neighbor approach for concealed information
test. Procedia Comput Sci. 2018;143:242–9.
28. Tripathi S, Acharya S, Sharma RD, Mittal S, Bhattacharya S. Using deep and convolutional neural networks for accu-
rate emotion classification on deap dataset. In: Twenty-ninth IAAI conference. 2017.
29. Placidi G, Di Giamberardino P, Petracca A, Spezialetti M, Iacoviello D. Classification of emotional signals from the
deap dataset. In: International congress on neurotechnology, electronics and informatics, vol. 2. SCITEPRESS; 2016. p.
15–21.
30. WeichenXu123 & mengxr. Spark-Sklearn repo. 2018. https​://githu​b.com/datab​ricks​/spark​-sklea​rn.
31. Oishi S, Kurtz JL. The positive psychology of positive emotions: an avuncular view. Designing positive psychology:
taking stock and moving forward. 2011. p. 101–14.
32. Kort B, Reilly R, Picard RW. An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: reengineering educa-
tional pedagogy-building a learning companion. In: Proceedings IEEE international conference on advanced learn-
ing technologies. New York: IEEE; 2001. p. 43–6.
33. Liu W, Zheng W-L, Lu B-L. Emotion recognition using multimodal deep learning. In: International conference on
neural information processing. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 521–9.
34. Dabas H, Sethi C, Dua C, Dalawat M, Sethia D. Emotion classification using EEG signals. In: Proceedings of the 2018
2nd international conference on computer science and artificial intelligence. ACM; 2018. p. 380–4.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Doma and Pirouz J Big Data (2020) 7:18 Page 21 of 21

35. Song T, Zheng W, Song P, Cui Z. EEG emotion recognition using dynamical graph convolutional neural networks.
IEEE Trans Affect Comput. 2018.
36. MacIntyre PD, Vincze L. Positive and negative emotions underlie motivation for l2 learning. Stud Second Lang Learn
Teach. 2017;7.
37. Shivhare SN, Khethawat S. Emotion detection from text. 2012. arXiv preprint arXiv​:1205.4944.
38. Suwicha Jirayucharoensak SP-N, Israsena P. EEG-based emotion recognition using deep learning network with
principal component based covariate shift adaptation. Sci World J. 2014. Article ID 627892.
39. Zheng W-L, Zhu J-Y, Lu B-L. Identifying stable patterns over time for emotion recognition from EEG. IEEE Trans Affect
Comput. 2017.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com