| Literature DB >> 29320579 |
Jianfang Cao1,2, Yanfei Li2, Yun Tian1.
Abstract
The development of network technology and the popularization of image capturing devices have led to a rapid increase in the number of digital images available, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify a desired image from among the massive number of possible images. Images usually contain rich semantic information, and people usually understand images at a high semantic level. Therefore, achieving the ability to use advanced technology to identify the emotional semantics contained in images to enable emotional semantic image classification remains an urgent issue in various industries. To this end, this study proposes an improved OCC emotion model that integrates personality and mood factors for emotional modelling to describe the emotional semantic information contained in an image. The proposed classification system integrates the k-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) algorithm with the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm. The MapReduce parallel programming model was used to adapt the KNN-SVM algorithm for parallel implementation in the Hadoop cluster environment, thereby achieving emotional semantic understanding for the classification of a massive collection of images. For training and testing, 70,000 scene images were randomly selected from the SUN Database. The experimental results indicate that users with different personalities show overall consistency in their emotional understanding of the same image. For a training sample size of 50,000, the classification accuracies for different emotional categories targeted at users with different personalities were approximately 95%, and the training time was only 1/5 of that required for the corresponding algorithm with a single-node architecture. Furthermore, the speedup of the system also showed a linearly increasing tendency. Thus, the experiments achieved a good classification effect and can lay a foundation for classification in terms of additional types of emotional image semantics, thereby demonstrating the practical significance of the proposed model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29320579 PMCID: PMC5761962 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mapping relationship between PAD values and the OCC model.
| Emotion type | Pleasure (P) | Arousability (A) | Dominance (D) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sad | -0.40 | -0.20 | -0.50 |
| Fear | -0.50 | -0.30 | -0.70 |
| Hate | -0.60 | 0.60 | 0.30 |
| Relaxed | 0.20 | -0.30 | 0.40 |
| Angry | -0.51 | 0.59 | 0.25 |
| Lost | -0.30 | 0.10 | -0.40 |
| Scared | -0.64 | 0.60 | -0.43 |
| Joyous | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.20 |
| Proud | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Hopeful | 0.20 | 0.20 | -0.10 |
Fig 1Framework of the behavioural experiment platform.
Experimental scheme for emotional semantic acquisition.
| Number of experimental images: 1000 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emotion model | Emotion type | Annotated value | Manner of annotation | Image display time |
| OCC emotion model | Sad | 0 | Click the left mouse button; | 6 s |
| Fear | 1 | |||
| Hate | 2 | |||
| Relaxed | 3 | |||
| Angry | 4 | |||
| Lost | 5 | |||
| Scared | 6 | |||
| Joyous | 7 | |||
| Pride | 8 | |||
| Hopeful | 9 | |||
Mapping between colour and emotion.
| Colour | Colour semantic description | OCC emotion word(s) |
|---|---|---|
| red | warm, festive, passionate, romantic | joyous, proud |
| orange | warm, friendly, soft | joyous |
| yellow | bright, gentle, vivacious | joyous, relaxed |
| green | hopeful, alive, vital, fresh | hopeful |
| cyan | vigorous, beautiful | hopeful, relaxed |
| blue | neat, calm, cold, aloof, sad | sad |
| purple | romantic, elegant, mysterious, noble | proud |
| white | monotonous, indifferent, poor | lost |
| gray | random, old, indifferent | lost, scared |
| black | serious, death, heavy, horrible | angry, fear, hate |
Fig 2Classification results for extraverted users for the “joyous” and “hopeful” emotions.
PSVM-KNN classification test accuracy.
| Emotion type | Openness | Conscientiousness | Extraversion | Agreeableness | Neuroticism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sad | 94.6% | 92.2% | 95.3% | 93.1% | 91.4% |
| fear | 92.8% | 93.2% | 93.1% | 90.9% | 87.6% |
| hate | 85.3% | 86.9% | 88.5% | 79.1% | 78.1% |
| relaxed | 98.4% | 97.2% | 99.2% | 95.8% | 93.5% |
| angry | 95.1% | 94.6% | 92.3% | 92.2% | 89.9% |
| lost | 81.3% | 83.5% | 78.3% | 77.1% | 76.6% |
| afraid | 96.4% | 96.3% | 98.7% | 95.4% | 90.7% |
| joyous | 99.7% | 98.4% | 99.3% | 96.8% | 94.1% |
| proud | 95.4% | 97.7% | 95.1% | 91.3% | 83.3% |
| hopeful | 97.7% | 95.4% | 98.5% | 95.4% | 90.7% |
Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers of training samples.
| Number of training samples | SVM | SVM-KNN | PSVM [ | PSVM-KNN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1000 | 71.85% | 74.39% | 82.64% | 86.15% |
| 2000 | 72.94% | 76.13% | 87.91% | 90.45% |
| 5000 | 77.58% | 79.81% | 92.49% | 95.71% |
| 10000 | 82.29% | 83.96% | 95.01% | 96.24% |
| 20000 | 89.37% | 91.47% | 95.81% | 96.83% |
| 50000 | 91.56% | 93.91% | 96.15% | 97.92% |
Fig 3Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers of classification categories.
Fig 4Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classification algorithms.
Fig 5Relationships between the number of training samples and the F1 value for the different classification algorithms.
Fig 6Comparison of the Youden′s index values achieved using different classification algorithms.
Fig 7Comparison of training times.
Fig 8Speedup comparison.