Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 62 references

PL-DCP: A Pairwise Learning framework with Domain and Class Prototypes for EEG emotion recognition under unseen target conditions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that PL-DCP, trained entirely on source subjects, reaches EEG emotion recognition accuracies of 82.88%, 65.15%, and 61.29% on SEED, SEED-IV, and SEED-V for unseen target subjects, matching or beating deep transfer…

desk verdict Source-only EEG emotion recognition that is competitive with target-dependent adaptation; plausible method, honest ablations, but the abstract oversells and the comparison lacks source-only baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00082 v2 pith:GIKHJR55 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.LG cs.AIcs.HCeess.SP

Guangli Li , Canbiao Wu , Zhehao Zhou , Tuo Sun , Ping Tan , Li Zhang , Zhen Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.HCeess.SP
keywords EEGemotionrecognitionprototypelearningfeaturedisentanglementunseentargetdomainpairwiselabelnoisetransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that emotion recognition from EEG can be done for an entirely unseen subject without using any of that subject's data during training, by separating each brain signal into a subject-specific component and an emotion-specific component. It introduces PL-DCP, a framework that learns one prototype per training subject and per-emotion prototypes inside each subject, then classifies a new sample by first choosing the closest source-subject prototype and then comparing the sample's emotion component with that subject's emotion prototypes. On SEED, SEED-IV, and SEED-V, the authors report accuracies of 82.88%, 65.15%, and 61.29% in single-session leave-one-subject-out tests, matching or beating deep transfer learning methods that do train on target data. They also report that replacing pointwise classification with pairwise learning keeps accuracy at 79.01% even when 30% of source labels are corrupted on SEED, versus 66.53% for pointwise learning. The paper is an attempt to show that calibration-free, source-only EEG emotion recognition is practically competitive.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-part pipeline. Feature disentanglement: a shallow multi-layer perceptron extractor feeds two disentanglers, and a domain discriminator plus a class discriminator, with gradient reversal layers, push domain features to carry only subject identity and class features only emotion semantics. Dual prototype inference: each source subject's domain features are averaged into a domain prototype $\mu_d$, and per-emotion class prototypes $\mu_c^{d_n,c^*}$ are computed inside each subject; at test time a trainable bilinear similarity $h(x_d,\mu_d) = x_d^\top S \mu_d$ ranks domains, and cosine similarity ranks classes inside the selected domain. Pairwise learning: instead of predicting a label for one sample, the objective compares pairs of samples' prototype-refined class features and penalizes disagreement with label agreement, with a soft orthogonality regularizer on the matrix of domain prototypes.

What would settle it

Run the SEED single-session leave-one-subject-out protocol and record, for each held-out target sample, which source-domain prototype the bilinear similarity of Eq. 8 selects and whether the class prototype of that domain gives the correct label. If a substantial fraction of target samples are closest to a source subject whose class prototypes do not separate that sample's true emotion, or if held-out subjects whose domain features are far from every source prototype score at chance, the transfer mechanism behind the reported gains fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that EEG emotion recognition under unseen target conditions can be driven by decomposing shallow EEG features into domain features and class features, inferring dual prototypes from source subjects only, and classifying through a hierarchical prototype match: first select the most similar source-domain prototype via a trainable bilinear similarity, then classify the sample's class features against the per-emotion class prototypes of that selected domain. Because the model never touches target data, the usual transfer-learning requirement of joint source-target alignment is removed. The paper further claims that pairwise learning over sample-prototype similarities, rather than pointwise classification, resists label noise, and that the whole system reaches accuracies comparable to or slightly better than deep transfer learning baselines that use target data during training.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every new person's brain signals, seen only at test time, will fall close enough to one of the training people's signal patterns that the emotion prototypes of that training person can correctly label the newcomer's emotions. If a new person sits between or outside all training patterns, the model has no mechanism to adjust its predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New users of an EEG emotion recognition system need no calibration recording: predictions come from source-domain prototypes alone, so deployment cost drops.
  • On the single-session protocol the model beats the target-free deep baseline DDC by 7.46 points on SEED and reaches 65.15% on SEED-IV, where the best target-based deep baseline reaches 59.34%.
  • On cross-session leave-one-subject-out tests, PL-DCP exceeds the best reported target-based baselines by 0.92% (SEED), 1.72% (SEED-IV), and 2.85% (SEED-V), indicating some robustness to session shift as well as subject shift.
  • Ablation results attribute the largest accuracy drops to removing the domain prototype (8.21%), the joint discriminator losses (8.39%), and pairwise learning (5.27%), identifying these as the load-bearing design choices.
  • The noisy-label experiments show the pairwise objective retains 79.01% accuracy at 30% label corruption while pointwise learning falls to 66.53%, supporting the claim of noise resistance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: if the nearest-domain assumption is robust, the same dual-prototype mechanism should transfer to other subject-dependent biosignals such as ECG or EMG; the paper does not test this, but the mechanism has no EEG-specific constraint.
  • Editorial extension: the bilinear similarity matrix $S$ is unconstrained, so the model could concentrate on a few 'hub' source domains; a testable modification is to symmetrize or spectrally regularize $S$ and check whether leave-one-subject-out accuracy becomes less dependent on which subject is held out.
  • Editorial extension: because prototypes are fixed at test time, a deployed system could append a new subject as an additional prototype without retraining the feature extractors, an incremental-learning scenario the paper leaves unmeasured.
  • Editorial extension: the cross-session gains leave open whether the domain prototype encodes subject identity or session-specific recording conditions; a diagnostic is whether the same subject's sessions form separate prototype clusters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PL-DCP, a source-only training framework for EEG emotion recognition that disentangles shallow EEG features into domain features and class features, builds domain prototypes (per source subject) and class prototypes (per class within each source domain), and then performs inference on an unseen target sample by first selecting the nearest source-domain prototype via bilinear similarity (Eq. 8) and then classifying the sample using that domain's class prototypes via cosine similarity (Eq. 10). A pairwise learning loss (Eqs. 11-13) is used in place of pointwise classification to reduce the effect of label noise. The method is evaluated on SEED, SEED-IV, and SEED-V under cross-subject single-session and cross-session leave-one-subject-out protocols, with reported accuracies of 82.88%, 65.15%, and 61.29% (single-session) and 79.34%, 63.16%, and 57.53% (cross-session), respectively.

Significance. If the reported results and claims are correct, the paper addresses a practically relevant problem: building EEG emotion recognition models that do not require target-domain data during training. The paper includes extensive comparisons with non-deep and deep transfer learning baselines, an ablation study, label-noise robustness experiments, and releases source code, which are all positive features. However, the central claim that PL-DCP achieves 'slightly better performance than the deep transfer learning method' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2, and several technical aspects of the prototype-inference and pairwise-loss design are not sufficiently validated. The idea of combining feature disentanglement with dual prototypes is interesting, but the current presentation overstates the empirical support.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.3, Table 2] The abstract and Section 4.3 claim that PL-DCP achieves slightly better performance than deep transfer learning methods that require both source and target data, but Table 2 shows that on SEED single-session LOOCV, BiDANN (83.28%) and R2G-STNN (84.16%) both outperform PL-DCP (82.88%). This is a direct contradiction of the paper's main selling point. The claim should be revised to accurately state the comparison, or the authors should explain why the comparisons to BiDANN and R2G-STNN are not directly comparable.
  2. [Sections 4.3-4.4, Tables 2-7] The paper repeatedly uses 'significantly higher' and 'significantly improved' to describe accuracy differences, but no statistical significance tests are reported. Most differences are within one standard deviation (e.g., SEED-V single-session: PL-DCP 61.29±9.61 vs. DAN 59.36±16.83; SEED cross-session: PL-DCP 79.34±6.34 vs. DANN 78.42±7.57). Without paired tests or confidence intervals, these claims are not supported and should be softened or substantiated with appropriate statistical analyses.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (11)-(12)] The pairwise loss in Eq. (12) computes cosine similarity between li and lj, where li is the softmax vector from Eq. (10) computed using class prototypes of domain d*_i, and lj is computed using class prototypes of domain d*_j. When d*_i ≠ d*_j, these vectors index different class-prototype sets, so the cosine similarity is not a well-defined similarity measure between the two samples in a common space. This undermines the pairwise learning objective as stated. The authors should either restrict pairs to samples assigned to the same domain, or use a global class-prototype space.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Eqs. (7) and (10)] The paper states in Section 3 that class features are domain-invariant, yet Eq. (7) defines class prototypes separately for each source domain, and Eq. (10) classifies a sample using the class prototypes of the single selected domain. This is internally inconsistent: if class features are truly domain-invariant, a single set of class prototypes should suffice. The per-domain class prototypes imply that class features retain domain-specific information, contradicting the disentanglement claim. The authors should clarify this conceptual inconsistency or modify the approach to use global class prototypes.
  5. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The transfer assumption that the nearest source-domain prototype is a valid proxy for an unseen target domain is not validated. For a target sample whose domain feature is far from all source-domain prototypes, the hard selection in Eq. (9) still forces an assignment to the nearest source domain, and the classification then relies on that domain's class prototypes. No analysis is provided for how far target samples are from source prototypes, or whether the selection confidence correlates with classification accuracy. The authors should at least discuss this limitation and, ideally, provide an empirical analysis of the prototype-selection behavior on target data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and formatting issues, including 'we proposes' in the Abstract, 'Domain-pprototype', and 'e ffectively' throughout. The affiliations also contain 'Chandsha' (likely 'Changsha'). These need to be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.4] In the cross-session SEED results, the text states the suboptimal model is DANN with 78.24%, but Table 5 reports DANN as 78.42%. The discrepancy should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'significantly higher' is used too strongly given the overlapping standard deviations; please use more measured language such as 'numerically higher' unless significance tests are added.
  4. [Tables 2-7] It is not stated how many random seeds or cross-validation folds contribute to the reported means and standard deviations, nor whether the same train/validation splits were used for all methods. This information should be reported to assess reproducibility.
  5. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The binary cross-entropy loss in Eq. (3) is described as converting a multi-class problem into independent binary tasks, but the exact output layer and label encoding for the domain discriminator are not specified. Please clarify how the domain labels are encoded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline accuracies are measured on external public benchmarks, the model is trained without target data by protocol, and no claimed prediction reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain in PL-DCP is self-contained and externally evaluated. The main claim—that a model trained without target-domain data reaches accuracies comparable to deep transfer methods that use target data—is supported by leave-one-subject-out experiments on SEED, SEED-IV, and SEED-V, which are public datasets and not generated by the paper. The prototype definitions in Eqs. 6-7 are standard feature means, and Eqs. 8-10 form a concrete nearest-prototype inference rule; they do not encode the reported accuracy values by construction. The method does reuse the PR-PL pairwise-learning idea from the same research lineage (ref. [18]), but the paper explicitly critiques PR-PL's limitation to class prototypes and its reliance on target data, and the added domain-prototype component is tested by ablation. This is normal building on prior work, not load-bearing circularity. The weakest assumption—that the most similar source-domain prototype is a valid proxy for an unseen target sample—is an unvalidated modeling assumption, and is therefore a correctness or generalization risk, not a circularity: the model's predictions are not defined to match the benchmark numbers. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely relabeled. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework's central claim rests on an unproven decomposition of EEG features into domain and class components, and on the assumption that nearest source-domain prototype matching transfers to unseen subjects. Training hyperparameters and beta are unreported, so exact reproduction from text is not possible.

free parameters (3)
  • Bilinear transformation matrix S = learned from source data
    Eq. 8 uses a trainable, randomly initialized matrix without positive-definiteness constraints; its learned values affect domain prototype similarity but are not reported.
  • Regularization weight beta = not reported
    Eq. 13 balances the pairwise loss and the soft orthogonality penalty R; the value is chosen by hand and not disclosed.
  • Training schedule (learning rate, epochs, batch size, optimizer, layer widths) = not reported
    None of these training hyperparameters are given in the paper, so exact reproduction from the text alone is impossible.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption EEG features decompose into domain features and class features via MLP disentanglers with adversarial discriminators.
    Stated in Section 3 as a hypothesis and implemented in Eqs. 1-5; no proof or external validation that the decomposition is complete or orthogonal.
  • domain assumption Nearest source-domain prototype matching transfers to unseen target subjects.
    Section 3.2, Eqs. 8-10 assign an unseen test sample to the closest source domain and classify using that domain's class prototypes, assuming the target subject lies near some source domain in domain-feature space.
  • domain assumption Class prototypes within a source domain generalize across sessions and subjects.
    Section 3.2 states that prototypes are fixed during testing; no explicit test of cross-session stability of the prototypes is reported.
invented entities (2)
  • Domain prototype (per-subject centroid of domain features)
    purpose: Represents a source subject's individual EEG style and selects which class prototypes to use for an unseen target sample (Eq. 6, Eqs. 8-10).
    Supported only by internal ablation (Table 8) and t-SNE visualization; there is no external falsifiable handle outside this paper.
  • Dual prototype inference hierarchy (domain first, then class)
    purpose: Two-stage classification: choose the closest source domain, then classify using that domain's class prototypes (Section 3.2).
    Internal design choice; no independent evidence that this two-stage matching is a faithful model of EEG variability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PL-DCP: A Pairwise Learning framework with Domain and Class Prototypes for EEG emotion recognition under unseen target conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIKHJR55

@misc{pith2026241200082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PL-DCP: A Pairwise Learning framework with Domain and Class Prototypes for EEG emotion recognition under unseen target conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIKHJR55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00082}
}
read the original abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals serve as a powerful tool in affective Brain-Computer Interfaces (aBCIs) and play a crucial role in affective computing. In recent years, the introduction of deep learning techniques has significantly advanced the development of aBCIs. However, the current emotion recognition methods based on deep transfer learning face the challenge of the dual dependence of the model on source domain and target domain, As well as being affected by label noise, which seriously affects the performance and generalization ability of the model. To overcome this limitation, we proposes a Pairwise Learning framework with Domain and Category Prototypes for EEG emotion recognition under unseen target conditions (PL-DCP), and integrating concepts of feature disentanglement and prototype inference. Here, the feature disentanglement module extracts and decouples the emotional EEG features to form domain features and class features, and further calculates the dual prototype representation. The Domain-pprototype captures the individual variations across subjects, while the class-prototype captures the cross-individual commonality of emotion categories. In addition, the pairwise learning strategy effectively reduces the noise effect caused by wrong labels. The PL-DCP framework conducts a systematic experimental evaluation on the published datasets SEED, SEED-IV and SEED-V, and the accuracy are 82.88\%, 65.15\% and 61.29\%, respectively. The results show that compared with other State-of-the-Art(SOTA) Methods, the PL-DCP model still achieves slightly better performance than the deep transfer learning method that requires both source and target data, although the target domain is completely unseen during the training. This work provides an effective and robust potential solution for emotion recognition. The source code is available at https://github.com/WuCB-BCI/PL_DCP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the domain prototype and class prototype. (a) Domain Prototype Inference. Colored circles represent domain features, while colored stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The structural framework of the proposed PL-DCP model. In the feature disentanglement module, we disentangle domain features and class features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of domain prototype inference and class prototype infer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices of different model settings under cross-subject single-session leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. The Seed database contains three emotion categories: negative, neutral and positive. Among them, (a) PL-DCP; (b) DANN; (c) DAN; (d) DCORAL. the See…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrices of different model settings under cross-subject single-session leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. The Seed-V database contains five emotion categories: happiness, neutral, sadness, disgust and fear. Among them, (a) PL-DCP; (b) DANN; (c) DAN; (d)…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fig.4.(e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of domain and class features at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A visualization of closer pair (a) and distant pair (b) of domain features in the class prototype space.Here, blue hollow circles ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    PARADISO, A ffective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions, American Journal of Psychiatry 159 (10) (2002) 1805–

    S. PARADISO, A ffective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions, American Journal of Psychiatry 159 (10) (2002) 1805–

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    L. F. Barrett, J. Gross, T. C. Christensen, M. Benvenuto, Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion di fferentiation and emotion regulation, Cognition & Emotion 15 (6) (2001) 713–724. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02699930143000239

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    W. Ye, Z. Zhang, F. Teng, M. Zhang, J. Wang, D. Ni, F. Li, P. Xu, Z. Liang, Semi-supervised dual-stream self-attentive adversarial graph contrastive learning for cross-subject eeg-based emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 16 (1) (2025) 290–305. doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2024.3433470

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    W. Ye, J. Wang, L. Chen, L. Dai, Z. Sun, Z. Liang, Adaptive spa- tial–temporal aware graph learning for eeg-based emotion recogni- tion, Cyborg and Bionic Systems 6 (2025) 0088. arXiv:https:// spj.science.org/doi/pdf/10.34133/cbsystems.0088, doi:10. 34133/cbsystems.0088

    work page doi:10.34133/cbsystems.0088 2025

  5. [5]

    Siddharth, T.-P. Jung, T. J. Sejnowski, Utilizing deep learning towards multi-modal bio-sensing and vision-based a ffective computing, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing 13 (01) (2022) 96–107. doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2916015

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    E. H. Houssein, A. Hammad, A. A. Ali, Human emotion recogni- tion from eeg-based brain–computer interface using machine learn- ing: a comprehensive review, Neural Computing and Applications 34 (15) (2022) 12527–12557. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00521-022-07292-4

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    W. Hu, G. Huang, L. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Liang, Video-triggered eeg-emotion public databases and current methods: A survey, Brain Sci- ence Advances 6 (3) (2020) 255–287. doi:https://doi.org/10. 26599/BSA.2020.9050026

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    S. M. Alarcao, M. J. Fonseca, Emotions recognition using eeg signals: A survey, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing 10 (3) (2017) 374–

    work page 2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    L. Feng, C. Cheng, M. Zhao, H. Deng, Y . Zhang, Eeg-based emotion recognition using spatial-temporal graph convolutional lstm with atten- tion mechanism, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2022) 5406–5417doi:10.1109/jbhi.2022.3198688. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y . Yang, Z. Wang, W. Tao, X. Liu, Z. Jia, B. Wang, F. Wan, Spectral- spatial attention alignment for multi-source domain adaptation in eeg- based emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing 15 (4) (2024) 2012–2024. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2024.3394436

    2024

  3. [11]

    Zhang, L

    D. Zhang, L. Yao, X. Zhang, S. Wang, W. Chen, R. Boots, Cascade and parallel convolutional recurrent neural networks on eeg-based intention recognition for brain computer interface, in: 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2018, AAAI Press, United States, 2018...

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Berkhout, D

    J. Berkhout, D. O. Walter, Temporal stability and individual di fferences in the human eeg: An analysis of variance of spectral values, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (3) (1968) 165–168. doi: 10.1109/tbme.1968.4502560

    1968

  5. [13]

    Paranjape, J

    R. Paranjape, J. Mahovsky, L. Benedicenti, Z. Koles, The electroen- cephalogram as a biometric, in: Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering 2001. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 01TH8555), V ol. 2, IEEE, 2001, pp. 1363–1366.doi:10.1109/CCECE. 2001.933649

    2001

  6. [14]

    J. J. Gross, O. P. John, Revealing feelings: facets of emotional expressiv- ity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior., Journal of personality and social psychology 72 (2) (1997) 435. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72. 2.435

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    Morawetz, U

    C. Morawetz, U. Basten, Neural underpinnings of individual di fferences in emotion regulation: A systematic review, Neuroscience & Biobe- havioral Reviews (2024) 105727 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neubiorev.2024.105727

    2024

  8. [16]

    Shalev-Shwartz, S

    S. Shalev-Shwartz, S. Ben-David, Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms, Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    LeCun, Y

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature (2015) 436–444doi:10.1038/nature14539. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    R. Zhou, Z. Zhang, H. Fu, L. Zhang, L. Li, G. Huang, F. Li, X. Yang, Y . Dong, Y .-T. Zhang, et al., Pr-pl: A novel prototypical representation based pairwise learning framework for emotion recognition using eeg sig- nals, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 15 (2) (2023)...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Jayaram, M

    V . Jayaram, M. Alamgir, Y . Altun, B. Scholkopf, M. Grosse-Wentrup, Transfer learning in brain-computer interfaces, IEEE Computational In- telligence Magazine 11 (1) (2016) 20–31. doi:10.1109/MCI.2015. 2501545

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Zhang, N

    K. Zhang, N. Robinson, S.-W. Lee, C. Guan, Adaptive transfer learning for eeg motor imagery classification with deep convolutional neural net- work, Neural Networks 136 (2021) 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.neunet.2020.12.013

    2021

  13. [21]

    W. Li, W. Huan, S. Shao, B. Hou, A. Song, Ms-fran: A novel multi-source domain adaptation method for eeg-based emotion recognition, IEEE Jour- nal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 27 (11) (2023) 5302–5313. doi:10.1109/JBHI.2023.3311338

    2023

  14. [22]

    Y . Peng, H. Liu, W. Kong, F. Nie, B.-L. Lu, A. Cichocki, Joint eeg feature transfer and semisupervised cross-subject emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 19 (7) (2023) 8104–8115. doi:10.1109/TII.2022.3217120

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. J. Pan, Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22 (10) (2010) 1345–1359. doi:10. 1109/TKDE.2009.191

    2010

  16. [25]

    J. Li, S. Qiu, Y .-Y . Shen, C.-L. Liu, H. He, Multisource transfer learning for cross-subject eeg emotion recognition, IEEE transactions on cybernet- ics 50 (7) (2019) 3281–3293. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2019.2904052

    2019

  17. [26]

    H. Chen, M. Jin, Z. Li, C. Fan, J. Li, H. He, Ms-mda: Multisource marginal distribution adaptation for cross-subject and cross-session eeg emotion recognition, Frontiers in Neuroscience 15 (2021) 778488. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.778488

    2021

  18. [27]

    X. Gu, W. Cai, M. Gao, Y . Jiang, X. Ning, P. Qian, Multi- source domain transfer discriminative dictionary learning modeling for electroencephalogram-based emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 9 (6) (2022) 1604–1612. doi:10.1109/ TCSS.2022.3153660

    2022

  19. [28]

    S. J. Pan, I. W. Tsang, J. T. Kwok, Q. Yang, Domain adaptation via trans- fer component analysis, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 22 (2) (2011) 199–210. doi:10.1109/TNN.2010.2091281

    2011

  20. [29]

    Fernando, A

    B. Fernando, A. Habrard, M. Sebban, T. Tuytelaars, Unsupervised visual domain adaptation using subspace alignment, in: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2013, pp. 2960–2967. doi:10.1109/ ICCV.2013.368

    2013

  21. [30]

    Zheng, B.-L

    W.-L. Zheng, B.-L. Lu, Personalizing eeg-based a ffective models with transfer learning, in: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 2016, pp. 2732–2738. doi:10. 5555/3060832.3061003

    2016

  22. [31]

    B. Gong, Y . Shi, F. Sha, K. Grauman, Geodesic flow kernel for unsuper- vised domain adaptation, in: 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2012, pp. 2066–2073. doi:10.1109/CVPR. 2012.6247911

    2012

  23. [32]

    Y . Yin, X. Zheng, B. Hu, Y . Zhang, X. Cui, Eeg emotion recognition using fusion model of graph convolutional neural networks and lstm, Applied Soft Computing (2021) 106954.doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106954

    2021

  24. [34]

    Zhang, F

    W. Zhang, F. Wang, Y . Jiang, Z. Xu, S. Wu, Y . Zhang, Cross-subject eeg-based emotion recognition with deep domain confusion, in: In- telligent Robotics and Applications: 12th International Conference, ICIRA 2019, Shenyang, China, August 8–11, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 12, Sp...

    2019

  25. [35]

    Gokhale, R

    T. Gokhale, R. Anirudh, B. Kailkhura, J. J. Thiagarajan, C. Baral, 13 Y . Yang, Attribute-guided adversarial training for robustness to natural perturbations, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence (2022) 7574–7582doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16927

    2022 doi

  26. [36]

    Snell, K

    J. Snell, K. Swersky, R. Zemel, Prototypical networks for few-shot learn- ing, in: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, NIPS’17, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY , USA, 2017, p. 4080–4090.doi:10.5555/3294996.3295163

    2017

  27. [37]

    P. O. Pinheiro, Unsupervised domain adaptation with similarity learning, in: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 2018, pp. 8004–8013. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2018.00835

    2018

  28. [38]

    Z. Ji, X. Liu, Y . Pang, W. Ouyang, X. Li, Few-shot human-object in- teraction recognition with semantic-guided attentive prototypes network, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30 (2020) 1648–1661. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2020.3046861

    2020

  29. [39]

    Q. Liu, J. Peng, Y . Ning, N. Chen, W. Sun, Q. Du, Y . Zhou, Refined pro- totypical contrastive learning for few-shot hyperspectral image classifica- tion, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61 (2023) 1–14. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2023.3257341

    2023

  30. [40]

    X. Yang, M. Han, Y . Luo, H. Hu, Y . Wen, Two-stream prototype learning network for few-shot face recognition under occlusions, IEEE Transac- tions on Multimedia 25 (2023) 1555–1563. doi:10.1109/TMM.2023. 3253054

    2023 doi

  31. [41]

    X. Peng, Z. Huang, X. Sun, K. Saenko, Domain agnostic learning with disentangled representations, in: K. Chaudhuri, R. Salakhutdinov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, V ol. 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2019, ...

    2019

  32. [42]

    R. Cai, Z. Li, P. Wei, J. Qiao, K. Zhang, Z. Hao, Learning disentangled semantic representation for domain adaptation, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’19, AAAI Press, 2019, p. 2060–2066

    2019

  33. [43]

    H. T. Schupp, B. N. Cuthbert, M. M. Bradley, J. T. Cacioppo, T. Ito, P. J. Lang, Affective picture processing: The late positive potential is modu- lated by motivational relevance, Psychophysiology (2000) 257–261doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3720257

    2000

  34. [44]

    P. A. Vald ´es-Hern´andez, N. von Ellenrieder, A. Ojeda-Gonzalez, S. Kochen, Y . Alem´an-G´omez, C. Muravchik, P. A. Vald ´es-Sosa, Ap- proximate average head models for eeg source imaging, Journal of Neuro- science Methods 185 (1) (2009) 125–132. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth. 2009.09.005

    2009 doi

  35. [45]

    Haueisen, D

    J. Haueisen, D. Tuch, C. Ramon, P. Schimpf, V . Wedeen, J. George, J. Belliveau, The influence of brain tissue anisotropy on human eeg and meg, NeuroImage 15 (1) (2002) 159–166. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001. 0962

    2002 doi

  36. [46]

    Zheng, B.-L

    W.-L. Zheng, B.-L. Lu, Investigating critical frequency bands and chan- nels for eeg-based emotion recognition with deep neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 7 (3) (2015) 162–175. doi:10.1109/TAMD.2015.2431497

    2015

  37. [47]

    Zheng, W

    W.-L. Zheng, W. Liu, Y . Lu, B.-L. Lu, A. Cichocki, Emotionmeter: A multimodal framework for recognizing human emotions, IEEE Transac- tions on Cybernetics 49 (3) (2019) 1110–1122. doi:10.1109/TCYB. 2018.2797176

    2019

  38. [48]

    Y . Li, W. Zheng, Y . Zong, Z. Cui, T. Zhang, X. Zhou, A bi-hemisphere domain adversarial neural network model for eeg emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing (2021) 494–504 doi:10. 1109/taffc.2018.2885474

    2021

  39. [49]

    Shi, B.-L

    L.-C. Shi, B.-L. Lu, O ff-line and on-line vigilance estimation based on linear dynamical system and manifold learning, in: 2010 Annual Inter- national Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 2010, pp. 6587–6590. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627125

    2010

  40. [50]

    Coomans, D

    D. Coomans, D. L. Massart, Alternative k-nearest neighbour rules in su- pervised pattern recognition: Part 1. k-nearest neighbour classification by using alternative voting rules, Analytica Chimica Acta 136 (1982) 15–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(01)95359-0

    1982 doi

  41. [51]

    S. Mika, B. Sch ¨olkopf, A. Smola, K.-R. M ¨uller, M. Scholz, G. R ¨atsch, Kernel pca and de-noising in feature spaces, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, NIPS’98, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998, p. 536–542

    1998

  42. [52]

    Jin, Y .-D

    Y . Jin, Y .-D. Luo, W.-L. Zheng, B.-L. Lu, Eeg-based emotion recognition using domain adaptation network, 2017, pp. 222–225. doi:10.1109/ ICOT.2017.8336126

    2017

  43. [53]

    B. Sun, J. Feng, K. Saenko, Return of frustratingly easy domain adap- tation, in: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’16, AAAI Press, 2016, p. 2058–2065

    2016

  44. [54]

    Breiman, Random forests, Machine learning 45 (2001) 5–32

    L. Breiman, Random forests, Machine learning 45 (2001) 5–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  45. [55]

    Li, Y .-M

    H. Li, Y .-M. Jin, W.-L. Zheng, B.-L. Lu, Cross-subject emotion recog- nition using deep adaptation networks, in: L. Cheng, A. C. S. Leung, S. Ozawa (Eds.), Neural Information Processing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 403–413. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1007/...

    2018

  46. [56]

    J. Li, S. Qiu, C. Du, Y . Wang, H. He, Domain adaptation for eeg emotion recognition based on latent representation similarity, IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 12 (2) (2020) 344–353. doi: 10.1109/TCDS.2019.2949306

    2020

  47. [57]

    B. Sun, K. Saenko, Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation, in: G. Hua, H. J ´egou (Eds.), Computer Vision – ECCV 2016 Workshops, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 443–450

    2016

  48. [58]

    Tzeng, J

    E. Tzeng, J. Ho ffman, N. Zhang, K. Saenko, T. Darrell, Deep domain con- fusion: Maximizing for domain invariance, ArXiv abs/1412.3474 (2014). URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17169365

    2014 arXiv

  49. [59]

    T. Song, W. Zheng, P. Song, Z. Cui, Eeg emotion recognition using dy- namical graph convolutional neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Af- fective Computing 11 (3) (2020) 532–541.doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2018. 2817622

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    Sejdinovic, B

    D. Sejdinovic, B. Sriperumbudur, A. Gretton, K. Fukumizu, Equivalence of distance-based and rkhs-based statistics in hypothesis testing, Annals of Stats 41 (5) (2013) 2263–2291. doi:10.1214/13-AOS1140

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    Y . Li, W. Zheng, L. Wang, Y . Zong, Z. Cui, From regional to global brain: A novel hierarchical spatial-temporal neural network model for eeg emotion recognition, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing 13 (2) (2022) 568–578. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2922912

    2022

  52. [62]

    van der Maaten, G

    L. van der Maaten, G. Hinton, Visualizing data using t-sne, Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (86) (2008) 2579–2605. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v9/vandermaaten08a.html 14

    2008

  53. [393]

    doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2714671

    2017

  54. [1805]

    doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.10.1805

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.