Why the study?
There is a lack of systematic analysis regarding classifier selection, sensor modalities, features, and expected accuracy ranges for emotion recognition using physiological data.
Feature Fusion techniques using multimodal physiological data provide competitive accuracy and computational efficiency for emotion recognition compared to existing state-of-the-art methods.
FF may aid efficient multimodal emotion classification; leaves open clinical validation and adoption.
Emotion recognition based on physiological data classification has been a topic of increasingly growing interest for more than a decade. However, there is a lack of systematic analysis in literature regarding the selection of classifiers to use, sensor modalities, features and range of expected accuracy, just to name a few limitations. In this work, we evaluate emotion in terms of low/high arousal and valence classification through Supervised Learning (SL), Decision Fusion (DF) and Feature Fusion (FF) techniques using multimodal physiological data, namely, Electrocardiography (ECG), Electrodermal Activity (EDA), Respiration (RESP), or Blood Volume Pulse (BVP). The main contribution of our work is a systematic study across five public datasets commonly used in the Emotion Recognition (ER) state-of-the-art, namely: (1) Classification performance analysis of ER benchmarking datasets in the arousal/valence space; (2) Summarising the ranges of the classification accuracy reported across the existing literature; (3) Characterising the results for diverse classifiers, sensor modalities and feature set combinations for ER using accuracy and F1-score; (4) Exploration of an extended feature set for each modality; (5) Systematic analysis of multimodal classification in DF and FF approaches. The experimental results showed that FF is the most competitive technique in terms of classification accuracy and computational complexity. We obtain superior or comparable results to those reported in the state-of-the-art for the selected datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bota et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: