I’m trying to replicate the train/test split method described in the paper: *"Investigating Critical Frequency Bands and Channels for EEG-Based Emotion Recognition with Deep Neural Networks" (Zheng & Lu, 2015) *.

The paper states:

*"We collected EEG data from 15 subjects, with each subject performing the experiment twice (two sessions) at one-week intervals. There are 30 experiments evaluated in total. The training data and test data come from different sessions of the same experiment. The training set contains nine sessions, while the test set contains six sessions from the same experiment."*

My Dataset Structure:

  • 15 subjects
  • Each subject has 3 sessions (not 2 as in the paper)
  • Each session contains 15 trials (EEG recordings) → 45 trials per subject total

My Interpretation: Since the paper mentions 9 training sessions and 6 test sessions but each subject only has 2 sessions (in their case), I’m confused about how to apply this split.

Possible Approach (Need Validation):

  • Per-Session Split (Within-Subject): For each session (15 trials), take the first 9 trials for training and the remaining 6 for testing. Repeat for all 3 sessions per subject. Average the accuracy across sessions for final subject-level performance.
  • OR

  • Cross-Subject Session Pooling: Since the paper mentions 9 vs. 6 sessions, perhaps they pooled sessions from multiple subjects (e.g., 3 subjects × 3 sessions = 9 training sessions).
  • Key Questions:

  • Does the 9 vs. 6 splits refer to sessions pooled across subjects, or is it a within-subject trial split?
  • If within-subject, is my per-session (9 train / 6 test) approach, correct?
  • If cross-subject, how should sessions be distributed to match their method?
  • Has anyone implemented this split before or understands how to align it with a dataset structured like mine? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

    More Assem Ibrahim's questions See All
    Similar questions and discussions