| Literature DB >> 31750838 |
Hendrik Buimer1,2, Renske Schellens1, Tjerk Kostelijk3, Abdellatif Nemri2, Yan Zhao2, Thea Van der Geest4, Richard Van Wezel1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large part of the communication cues exchanged between persons is nonverbal. Persons with a visual impairment are often unable to perceive these cues, such as gestures or facial expression of emotions. In a previous study, we have determined that visually impaired persons can increase their ability to recognize facial expressions of emotions from validated pictures and videos by using an emotion recognition system that signals vibrotactile cues associated with one of the six basic emotions.Entities:
Keywords: emotion recognition; social interaction; tactile; visual impairment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31750838 PMCID: PMC6895890 DOI: 10.2196/13722
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Participants.
| ID | Age (years) | Gender | Visual impairment | Sight | 10 or more years of vision | Emotion logs availablea |
| 1 | 28 | Male | Neurological damage to eye nerves | Tunnel | No | Yes |
| 2b | 28 | Male | Persistent fetal vasculature | None | No | No |
| 3b | 66 | Male | Retinitis pigmentosa | None | No | No |
| 4 | 59 | Female | Retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, and cataract | None | Yes | Yes |
| 5 | 47 | Male | Cone dystrophy | Peripheral | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | 64 | Female | Congenital rubella syndrome | None | No | Yes |
| 7 | 50 | Female | Retinitis pigmentosa | None | Yes | Yes |
| 8 | 32 | Female | Aniridia | <5% | Yes | Yes |
aSee the section Data Collection and Analysis.
bNo emotion logs were collected during the experiment.

Schematic overview of the used system.

Emotion mapping. The mapping of Ekman’s universal emotions on the waist band.
Stimuli distribution. Overview of the number of stimuli that were presented to the participants in each training session and the percentage of audio-accompanied stimuli.
| Session | Total number of stimuli (percentage audio accompanied stimuli), n (%) | ||||
| 1 | 36 (100) | 36 (50) | 36 (33) | 36 (0) | 20-96 (0)a |
| 2 | 24 (100) | 24 (0) | 20-96 (0)a | —b | — |
aEnded after a 95% correct score in the last 20 stimuli.
bThe second session included only three sets of stimuli.
Exit interview topics. An overview of the topics discussed in the exit interview, the associated questions, and the subthemes of interest.
| Topic, exit interview question | Subthemes | |
|
| ||
|
| How was your experience using the system? | Accuracy, usefulness, feedback, fun of use, and ease of use |
|
| What was the value of the system during the conversation? | Additional value, distraction from the conversation, and interpretation of the system |
|
| ||
|
| Would you like to use the system in your daily life? | System usage, situations of use, and recommendation to others |
|
| Imagine you have a job interview next week and we will lend you the system. Would you use it during the job interview? | Usage in job interview |
|
| ||
|
| If you are the manager of the team that develops this system, what do you think they should tackle first? | Improvements of the system and additions to the system |
|
| ||
|
| How do you expect people in your surroundings (eg, family, friends, and colleagues) will react to you using a system like this? | Reaction of surroundings and introduction of the system |
Example of an emotion log. The emotion log provides a value between 0 and 1 for each emotion at each timestamp (hours [hh]:minutes [mm]:seconds[ss]:milliseconds[ms]).
| hh | mm | ss | ms | Neutral | Happiness | Sadness | Anger | Surprise | Fear | Disgust |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 226 | 0.848577 | 0.261171 | 0.045551 | 0.037921 | 0.066328 | 0.101152 | 0.034363 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 279 | 0.853517 | 0.246223 | 0.052067 | 0.039493 | 0.064576 | 0.089338 | 0.034737 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 354 | 0.860102 | 0.227184 | 0.061851 | 0.045071 | 0.060259 | 0.075662 | 0.033203 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 439 | 0.868132 | 0.206724 | 0.068306 | 0.054500 | 0.054876 | 0.063745 | 0.032779 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 550 | 0.875653 | 0.181231 | 0.069503 | 0.060954 | 0.048684 | 0.050882 | 0.034567 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 617 | 0.866770 | 0.157769 | 0.065179 | 0.063756 | 0.041683 | 0.042549 | 0.050491 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 673 | 0.850679 | 0.149551 | 0.064955 | 0.064503 | 0.038547 | 0.039288 | 0.058762 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 742 | 0.834428 | 0.144484 | 0.065088 | 0.065431 | 0.036603 | 0.038934 | 0.061535 |
| 14 | 1 | 24 | 798 | 0.807851 | 0.137719 | 0.065118 | 0.067514 | 0.033447 | 0.040757 | 0.061940 |
Number of errors during the initial training. The table shows the numbers of errors of all participants during the initial training session.
| ID | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 | Set 5 | Total | ||
|
| Aa (n=36) | A (n=18) | Tb (n=18) | A (n=12) | T (n=24) | T (n=36) | T (n=20-96) |
|
| 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 2c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3c | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 22 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Total | 14 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 39 |
aA: auditory accompanied vibrotactile stimuli.
bT: tactile only stimuli.
cNo emotion logs were available for this participant in the experiment.
Number of errors during the refresher training session. The table shows the number of errors of all participants during the refresher training session.
| ID | Set 1, Aa (n=24) | Set 2, Tb (n=24) | Set 3, T (n=20-96) | Total |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2c | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 3c | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 9 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
aA: auditory accompanied vibrotactile stimuli.
bT: tactile only stimuli.
cNo emotion logs were available for this participant in the experiment.
Crosstabs of agreement between coders and software. The table shows a tally of the number of time the coders and FaceReader classified a fragment as a particular emotion. The diagonal shows the number of times that the coders and FaceReader classified a fragment as the same emotion.
| Facereader | Coders | |||||||
|
| Anger | Disgust | Happiness | Sadness | Fear | Surprise | None/other | Total |
| Anger |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 10 |
| Disgust | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 13 |
| Happiness | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 46 |
| Sadness | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 0 | 1 | 41 | 49 |
| Fear | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Surprise | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 41 |
| Total | 4 | 0 | 50 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 99 | 166 |
Overview of the agreement between human coders and the software for the facial expressions detected. The table shows the classification of detected emotions.
| Emotions | Agreement | Disagreement | Not detected by FaceReadera |
| Anger | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Happiness | 17 | 2 | 31 |
| Disgust | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Sadness | 0 | 10 | 0 |
| Fear | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Surprise | 3 | 3 | 20 |
| Total | 20 | 24 | 51 |
aThe coders identified 11 other facial expressions that did not classify as 1 of the universal emotions.