| Literature DB >> 31623279 |
Theekshana Dissanayake1, Yasitha Rajapaksha2, Roshan Ragel3, Isuru Nawinne4.
Abstract
Recently, researchers in the area of biosensor based human emotion recognition have used different types of machine learning models for recognizing human emotions. However, most of them still lack the ability to recognize human emotions with higher classification accuracy incorporating a limited number of bio-sensors. In the domain of machine learning, ensemble learning methods have been successfully applied to solve different types of real-world machine learning problems which require improved classification accuracies. Emphasising on that, this research suggests an ensemble learning approach for developing a machine learning model that can recognize four major human emotions namely: anger; sadness; joy; and pleasure incorporating electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. As feature extraction methods, this analysis combines four ECG signal based techniques, namely: heart rate variability; empirical mode decomposition; with-in beat analysis; and frequency spectrum analysis. The first three feature extraction methods are well-known ECG based feature extraction techniques mentioned in the literature, and the fourth technique is a novel method proposed in this study. The machine learning procedure of this investigation evaluates the performance of a set of well-known ensemble learners for emotion classification and further improves the classification results using feature selection as a prior step to ensemble model training. Compared to the best performing single biosensor based model in the literature, the developed ensemble learner has the accuracy gain of 10.77%. Furthermore, the developed model outperforms most of the multiple biosensor based emotion recognition models with a significantly higher classification accuracy gain.Entities:
Keywords: bio-signal processing; electrocardiogram; ensemble learning; machine learning; wearable computing
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31623279 PMCID: PMC6832168 DOI: 10.3390/s19204495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1SpikerShield Heart and Brain sensor.
Figure 2Discrete emotional model.
Videos and subjective results.
| Name | Target Emotion | Duration (minutes) | Hits | Misses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A scene from the Mr. Bean (1997) movie | Joy | 5 | 25 | 0 |
| A TV commercial about a pet | Sad | 3.5 | 23 | 2 |
| A 4K-HD video of space and landscape | Pleasure | 5 | 18 | 2 |
| A man beating a women in the streets (a viral video) | Anger | 2 | 15 | 10 |
| A movie seance from Mama (2013) | Fear | 10 | 25 | 0 |
| A black screen | Neutral | 5 | 15 | 10 |
Figure 3Experiment environment.
Figure 4Pre-processing algorithm results.
Figure 5PQRST wave locations.
Figure 6PQRST detection algorithm results.
Figure 7Heart Rate Variability (HRV) time series.
HRV based features.
| Type | Features |
|---|---|
| Time |
|
| Frequency |
|
| Geometric |
|
With-in beat features.
| Interval | Features |
|---|---|
| PR |
|
| ST |
|
| QRS |
|
Figure 8The first six IMFs and the base ECG wave.
Figure 9Spectral power variation.
Model evaluation results.
| Classifier | Optimal Parameters | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Random Forest | max_features: 2, n_estimators: 81, max_depth: 11 | 65.28%(5.08%) |
| Extra Tree Classifier | max_features: 6, n_estimators: 71, max_depth: 41 | 70.09%(3.34%) |
| Gradient Boost Classifier | n_estimators: 81, loss: deviance, learning_rate: 0.2 | 66.04%(4.07%) |
| ADABoost Classifier with SVM | n_estimators: 1, base_estimator: SVM(C=1.0, degree=3, gamma=’auto’, kernel=’rbf’) | 41.25%(2.46%) |
| ADABoost Classifier with Decision Tree | n_estimators: 40, learning_rate: 1.0, algorithm: ’SAMME’ | 43.81%(4.19%) |
| ADABoost Classifier with Naive Bayes | n_estimators: 12, learning_rate: 1.3, algorithm: ’SAMME’ | 40.26%(5.35%) |
max_features: maximum number of features considered while splitting, n_estimators: number of models (learners) in the ensemble, max_depth: maximum depth of a tree in ensemble, base_estimator: the estimator which is used to build the ensemble, algorithm: SAMME discrete boosting algorithm, degree: degree of the kernel, kernel: kernel type, C: penalty parameter.
Ensemble methods with feature selection.
| Method | RF | ETC | GB |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFE(number of features: 10) | 64.34% (3.65%) | 73.03% (3.35%) | 68.97% (3.40%) |
| RFE(number of features: 15) | 67.93% (2.64%) | 66.13% (3.19%) | 67.90% (4.47%) |
| RFE(number of features: 20) | 66.92% (3.71%) | 73.91% (2.61%) | 69.21% (2.23%) |
| RFE(number of features: 25) | 68.77% (3.34%) | 74.00% (3.28%) | 72.66% (3.36%) |
| RFE(number of features: 30) | 65.60% (3.37%) | 72.12% (3.44%) | 65.11% (2.46%) |
| RFE(number of features: 35) | 66.99% (5.12%) | 73.00% (2.22%) | 64.06% (4.56%) |
| RFE(number of features: 40) | 63.71% (4.43%) | 71.96% (3.87%) | 61.12% (3.33%) |
| Chi-Squared statistic(>0.1) | 67.51% (4.38%) | 76.30% (3.84%) | 65.06% (3.18%) |
| Chi-Squared statistic(>0.5) | 59.69% (2.82%) | 72.79% (3.23%) | 64.77% (3.77%) |
| Chi-Squared statistic(>1.0) | 63.47% (3.48%) | 70.19% (2.55%) | 63.66% (3.36%) |
| Chi-Squared statistic(>2.0) | 52.80% (3.77%) | 54.19% (2.34%) | 54.44% (3.67%) |
| P-Test value (>0.1) | 67.22% (4.33%) | 76.22% (2.25%) | 67.16% (3.47%) |
| P-Test value (>0.5) | 67.76% (3.68%) | 75.19% (4.04%) | 68.00% (2.34%) |
| P-Test value (>0.8) | 65.49% (3.36%) | 70.21% (2.43%) | 69.99% (3.37%) |
| Model based(model: RT) | 75.35% (4.18%) | 76.14% (4.04%) | 71.62%(3.84%) |
| Model based(model: ETC) | 79.23% (3.53%) | 80.00% (4.27%) | 71.40% (4.12%) |
| Model based(model: NB) | 72.21% (3.87%) | 77.13% (2.23%) | 70.12%(4.22%) |
RF: Random Forest, ETC: Extra Tree Classifier, GB: Gradient Boost Classifier, RFE: Recursive Feature Elimination, NB: Naive Bayes.
Feature selection results.
| Method | N | D | Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMD |
| T |
|
| F |
| ||
| HRV |
| T |
|
| F |
| ||
| G |
| ||
| WIB |
| T |
|
| FFB |
| F |
|
D = Domain, T = Time Domain, F = Frequency Domain; G = Geometric; N = selected features as a fraction of total features extracted from the method.
Benchmark models.
| Model | Emotions | Accuracy(TFB) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| A* | anger, sadness, joy, pleasure | 75.94%(4.11%) | 80.00%(4.27%) |
| B | anger, sadness, joy, pleasure, fear | 72.86%(3.47%) | 77.25%(3.14%) |
| C | four emotion quadrants | 72.13%(3.26%) | 78.12%(4.32%) |
| D | anger, sadness, joy, pleasure, fear, neutral | 70.63%(3.77%) | 75.11%(3.77%) |
Comparison with the literature.
| Study | Adopted Emotions | E-EM | MS | N | Acc | Gain(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFB | Com | ||||||
| Kim et al. (2004) [ | sadness, anger, stress, surprise | A | ✓ | 124 | 61.8% | +14.14 | +18.20 |
| Yoo et al. (2005) [ | sadness, calm pleasure, interesting pleasure, fear (four quadrants) | V | ✓ | 6 | 80% | -7.87 | -0.21 |
| Rigas et al. (2007) [ | joy, disgust, fear | P | ✓ | 9 | 62.7% | ||
| Kim and André (2008) [ | anger, sadness, pleasure, joy | A | ✓ | 3 | 70% | +5.94 | +10.00 |
| Maaoui et al. (2010) [ | amusement, contentment, disgust, fear, sadness, neutral | I | ✓ | 10 | 46.5% | +24.13 | +28.61 |
| Rattanyu and Mizukawa (2011) [ | anger, fear, sadness, joy, digest, neutral | P | ✗ | 12 | 61.44% | +9.19 | +8.67 |
| Jeritta et al. (2012) [ | neutral, happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, disgust | V | ✗ | 15 | 59.78% | +10.85 | +15.33 |
| Murugappan et al. (2013) [ | digest, sadness, fear, joy, neutral | V | ✗ | 20 | 66.48% | +6.38 | +10.77 |
| Jerritta et al. (2014) [ | neutral, happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, disgust | V | ✗ | 30 | 54% | +16.63 | +21.11 |
| Guo et al. (2016) [ | sadness, angry, fear, happy, relaxed | V | ✗ | 25 | 56.9% | +15.96 | +20.35 |
E-EM= emotion elicited method, N= number of subjects, MS= Multiple Sensors including ECG sensor, ECG-FE= ECG signal Feature Extraction method, IM+= Improvement after combining. A: Audio, I: Images, V: Video and Acc: Accuracy.
Computational requirements.
| Method | Computation Time(s) | Space Complexity | Time Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| HRV | 0.0016 (0.69%) |
|
|
| EMD | 0.2216 (95.97%) |
|
|
| WIB | 0.0004 (0.17%) |
|
|
| TFB | 0.0023 (0.99%) |
|
|
| Combined | 0.2309 |
|
|