Table 1.
The descriptive statistical results on the valence dimension.
Fig 1.
The valence scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos among participants with different ages.
Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 2.
The valence scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos between male and female.
Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 3.
The valence scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos among participants with different ages.
A: Male. B: Female. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 4.
The valence scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos between male and female.
A: Age = 20–24. B: Age = 25–29. C: Age = 30–34. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Table 2.
The descriptive statistical results on the arousal dimension.
Fig 5.
The arousal scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos among participants with different ages.
Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 6.
The arousal scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos between male and female.
Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 7.
The arousal scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos among participants with different ages.
A: Male. B: Female. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 8.
The arousal scores of each category of emotion-inducing short videos between male and female.
A: Age = 20–24. B: Age = 25–29. C: Age = 30–34. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Unless marked with the asterisk, no significant differences between these groups were found.
Fig 9.
The experimental environment.
Fig 10.
The Emotiv EPOC X and its electrode distribution.
Fig 11.
The flowchart of EEG signal acquisition experiment.
Fig 12.
A participant shortly before the experiment.
Fig 13.
The emotion recognition results of 11 commonly used classifiers.
Table 3.
The EEG emotion recognition results of different participant groups elicited by different video stimuli.
Table 4.
The statistical analysis results on emotional evaluation scale of male and female groups aged 20–24.
Table 5.
The statistical analysis results on SAM scale of male and female groups aged 20–24.
Table 6.
Summary of the database contents.