Key result
Emotion recognition using a wrist device and emotional recall achieved up to 75% accuracy with subject-dependent training, but only 32% with subject-independent training.
Why the study?
Systems translating physiological emotion recognition from controlled laboratory settings to real-life applications with higher technology readiness levels are lacking.
Observational (n=45)
Emotion recognition from wristband physiological signals is highly subject-dependent, achieving 75% accuracy with subject-specific training but performing poorly (36%) with subject-independent training.
Subject-specific models reach moderate accuracy but limit scalability; leaves open generalizability for clinical emotion monitoring.
Implementing affective engineering in real-life applications requires the ability to effectively recognize emotions using physiological measurements. Despite being a widely researched topic, there seems to be a lack of systems that translate results from data collected in a laboratory setting to higher technology readiness levels. In this paper, we delve into the feasibility of emotion recognition beyond controlled laboratory environments. For this reason, we create a minimally-invasive experimental setup by combining emotional recall via autobiographical emotion memory tasks with a user-friendly Empatica wristband measuring blood volume pressure, electrodermal activity, skin temperature, and acceleration. We employ standard practices of feature-based supervised learning and specifically use support vector machines to explore subject dependency through various segmentation methods. We collected data from 45 participants. After preprocessing, using a data set of 134 segments from 40 participants, the accuracy of the classifier after 10-fold cross-validation was barely better than random guessing (36% for four emotions). However, when extracting multiple segments from each emotion task per participant using 10-fold cross-validation (i.e., including subject-dependent data in the training set), the classification rate increased to up to 75% for four emotions but was still as low as 32% for leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (i.e., subject-independent training). We conclude that highly subject-dependent issues might pose emotion recognition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattern et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Emotion recognition (n=45). Physiological signal measurement via wrist device during emotional recall was evaluated on Classification accuracy for four emotions. Emotion recognition using a wrist device and emotional recall achieved up to 75% accuracy with subject-dependent training, but only 32% with subject-independent training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: