It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Machine learning methods provide powerful tools to map physical measurements to scientific categories. But are such methods suitable for discovering the ground truth about psychological categories? We use the science of emotion as a test case to explore this question. In studies of emotion, researchers use supervised classifiers, guided by emotion labels, to attempt to discover biomarkers in the brain or body for the corresponding emotion categories. This practice relies on the assumption that the labels refer to objective categories that can be discovered. Here, we critically examine this approach across three distinct datasets collected during emotional episodes—measuring the human brain, body, and subjective experience—and compare supervised classification solutions with those from unsupervised clustering in which no labels are assigned to the data. We conclude with a set of recommendations to guide researchers towards meaningful, data-driven discoveries in the science of emotion and beyond.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Northeastern University, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.261112.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2173 3359)
2 Northeastern University, Department of Psychology, College of Science, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.261112.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2173 3359)
3 University of Oregon, Department of Psychology, Eugene, USA (GRID:grid.170202.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8008)
4 University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Cognitive Science, Boulder, USA (GRID:grid.266190.a) (ISNI:0000000096214564)
5 University of New Hampshire, Department of Psychology, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.167436.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2192 7145)
6 Northeastern University, Department of Psychology, College of Science, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.261112.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2173 3359); Edith Nourse Rogers Veterans Hospital, Bedford, USA (GRID:grid.261112.7)
7 Northeastern University, Department of Psychology, College of Science, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.261112.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2173 3359); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924); Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924)