Table A2.

Risk of bias tool.

Domain 1	Review Authors’s Judgement	Criteria for Judgement
Sample [74]	1. Was the sample size prespecified?	Yes/partial yes	The experiment was preceded by calculating the minimum sample size, and the method used was adequate and well-described.
		No/partial no	It is stated that the minimum sample size has not been calculated, or it has been calculated, but no details of the method used are provided.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Sample [74]	2. Were eligibility criteria for the experiment provided?	Yes/partial yes	The criteria for inclusion in the experiment are specified.
		No/partial no	The criteria for inclusion in the experiment were used, however not specified in the article.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Participants [73]	3. Were all inclusions and exclusions of participants appropriate?	Yes/partial yes	The criteria for inclusion and exclusion are relevant to the aim of the study. Conditions that may affect the participant’s state or collected physiological signals and ability to recognise emotions were considered, including cardiovascular and mental disorders.
		No/partial no	The established criteria for inclusion and exclusion are irrelevant to the aim of the study.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Measurement [74]	4. Was the measurement of exposition clearly stated?	Yes/partial yes	The selection of stimuli is adequately justified in the context of eliciting emotions, e.g., selection from a standardised database, pilot studies.
		No/partial no	The selection of stimuli was carried out based on inadequate criteria.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Measurement [74]	5. Was the measurement of outcome clearly stated?	Yes/partial yes	The assessment tool used for emotions measurement is described in detail, adequate, and validated.
		No/partial no	The assessment tool used for emotions measurement is not described, or the measurement method is inadequate, or not validated.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Flow and Timing [72]	6. Did all participants receive a reference standard?	Yes/partial yes	Emotions were measured in all participants, and the measurement was performed after each stimulus.
		No/partial no	Not all participants had their emotions measured.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Flow and Timing [72]	7. Did participants receive the same reference standard?	Yes/partial yes	The same assessment standard was used in all participants who had their emotions measured
		No/partial no	A different assessment standard was used in some of the participants to measure their emotions.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in this regard.
Control of confounders [74]	8. Were the confounders measured?	Yes/partial yes	Adequate confounding factors were measured, and relevant justification is provided.
		No/partial no	The control of confounding factors is not justified, or the measured factors are inadequate.
		Not reported	No sufficient information is provided in regard to confounding factors.
Scenario 1: Overall quality (elicitation) Scenario 2: Overall quality (without judgement of 1. item)		High	All judgements are yes or partial yes.
		Low	At least one judgement is no or partial no.
		Unclear	All judgements are yes or partial yes with at least one not reported.

¹ the specific domain was based on an instrument provided in the reference.