## 2 Materials and Methods
### Datasets
#### 2.1.2 BDAT Dataset  
There were 10 participants in the BDAT dataset; 9 children with SMCIs and 1 matched, typically developing (TDM) child. This research was approved by Queen's University's Health and Research Ethics Board, with consent and assent of all the participants obtained. The participant group with SMCIs consisted of children with motor and communication  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline  & **DEAP Dataset** & **BDAT Dataset** \\ \hline Stimuli & 40 Music Videos & 30 images selected from IAPS \\ \hline Signals & PPG, GSR, and RESP & PPG, GSR \\ \hline Output & PAD & Emotion \\ \hline Participants & 32 Typically Developing & 9 SMCIs, 1 TDM \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Datasets overview.  
Figure 1: Algorithm development.  
impairments which limited their response to traditional scales (paper and pencil/verbal self-report methods). The selection of participants within the group of children with SMCIs was defined the same as in the systematic review performed with [PERSON] [5]. The age range (5-25 years old) was specified to be consistent with the age range of school-age children. In Ontario, Canada, school-age children encompass individuals under the age of 25 years old [25]. Further, multiple international health assessments and school-related participation guidelines specify children as under 25 years old. A minimum of five years of age was specified to account for appropriate developmental age of comprehension and expression [26]. Primary guardians of children with SMCIs were also required to be able to comprehend and communicate fluently in English. To ensure that this study was accessible to the participant group with SMCIs, this study was completed at the participants' homes in most cases. It is recognized that this is a small group of participants, especially when implementing machine learning algorithms. However, recruitment of participants with disabilities, especially those who have severe motor and communication impairments, is extremely difficult. Strategies were undertaken to identify as many potential participants as possible, with recommendations by [PERSON] et al. [27] followed throughout.  
The IAPS (International Affective Picture System) was used to evoke an emotional response [28]. The IAPS system was chosen as it is a standardized method that uses the SAM tool to assess emotion. IAPS is a collection of photographs that have been rated by participants for pleasure, arousal, and dominance. The present protocol selected 30 IAPS images that were suitable for children. Participants were shown ten IAPS images for 6 s and then self-reported pleasure, arousal, and dominance using SAM tool on a nine-point scale. A grey screen was presented between images, and the timing for this screen depended on when the participant was ready for the next image. The same protocol was followed such that 2 or 3 rounds were conducted, depending on the willingness of the participant. During the display of images, PPG (photoplethysmography) and GSR (galvanic skin response) data were collected with a Gazepoint GP-3, (Gazepoint, Vancouver, BC, Canada), which includes a biometrics system. For children who were unable to self-report their scores on the SAM, information was collected from caregivers of their evaluation of the child's response.