| Literature DB >> 32708056 |
Aasim Raheel1, Muhammad Majid1, Majdi Alnowami2, Syed Muhammad Anwar3.
Abstract
Emotion recognition has increased the potential of affective computing by getting an instant feedback from users and thereby, have a better understanding of their behavior. Physiological sensors have been used to recognize human emotions in response to audio and video content that engages single (auditory) and multiple (two: auditory and vision) human senses, respectively. In this study, human emotions were recognized using physiological signals observed in response to tactile enhanced multimedia content that engages three (tactile, vision, and auditory) human senses. The aim was to give users an enhanced real-world sensation while engaging with multimedia content. To this end, four videos were selected and synchronized with an electric fan and a heater, based on timestamps within the scenes, to generate tactile enhanced content with cold and hot air effect respectively. Physiological signals, i.e., electroencephalography (EEG), photoplethysmography (PPG), and galvanic skin response (GSR) were recorded using commercially available sensors, while experiencing these tactile enhanced videos. The precision of the acquired physiological signals (including EEG, PPG, and GSR) is enhanced using pre-processing with a Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter. Frequency domain features (rational asymmetry, differential asymmetry, and correlation) from EEG, time domain features (variance, entropy, kurtosis, and skewness) from GSR, heart rate and heart rate variability from PPG data are extracted. The K nearest neighbor classifier is applied to the extracted features to classify four (happy, relaxed, angry, and sad) emotions. Our experimental results show that among individual modalities, PPG-based features gives the highest accuracy of 78.57 % as compared to EEG- and GSR-based features. The fusion of EEG, GSR, and PPG features further improved the classification accuracy to 79.76 % (for four emotions) when interacting with tactile enhanced multimedia.Entities:
Keywords: classification; emotion recognition; physiological signal processing; tactile enhanced multimedia; wearable sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32708056 PMCID: PMC7411620 DOI: 10.3390/s20144037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
A summary of the recent literature on emotion recognition using various stimuli and physiological sensors.
| Reference | Stimuli | Senses Engaged | Sensors Used | Emotions Classified | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Music | Auditory | EEG | Happy, sad, love, anger |
|
| [ | Music | Auditory | EMG, ECG, GSR, respiration | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Images | Vision | GSR, ECG, temperature | Love, joy, surprise, fear |
|
| [ | Images | Vision | EEG | Fear | – |
| [ | Images | Vision | EEG, peripheral signals | Positively excited, negatively |
|
| excited, calm | |||||
| [ | Images | Vision | GSR, PPG | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Images | Vision | EEG | Low/ High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Images | Vision | EEG | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Odors | Olfaction | EEG | Pleasant, unpleasant |
|
| [ | Textile Fabrics | Tactile | EEG | Pleasant, unpleasant |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, GSR, EMG, EoG, BVP | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, ECG, EoG, MEG | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, ECG, GSR | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, ECG, GSR, respiration | Joy, funny, anger, fear, |
|
| disgust, neutrality | |||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, Eye | Pleasant, unpleasant, neutral, |
|
| Tracking | calm, medium, activated | ||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | HRV, respiration | Happiness, fear, surprise, |
|
| anger, sadness, disgust | |||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, GSR | Boredom |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | ECG, skin temperature, EDA | Negative emotion |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | ECG, EMG, GSR, PPG | Pleasure, fear, sadness, anger |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | ECG, skin temperature, EDA | Happiness, surprise, anger, |
|
| disgust, sadness, fear | |||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | ECG | Joy, sadness, pleasure, anger, |
|
| fear, neutral | |||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG | Amusement, sadness, anger, |
|
| fear, surprise, disgust | |||||
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG | Low, medium, high fear |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG | Positive, neutral, negative |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG, GSR | Low/High valence-arousal |
|
| [ | Videos | Vision, Auditory | EEG | Joy, neutrality, sadness, |
|
| disgust, anger, fear | |||||
| [ | Tactile enhanced | Vision, Auditory, | EEG | Happy, angry, sad, relaxed |
|
| multimedia | Tactile |
Figure 1Our proposed methodology for emotion recognition using EEG, GSR, and PPG in response to TEM.
Synchronization timestamp and tactile effect duration of TEM clips used in this study.
| TEM | Sensorial | Clip | Synchronization | Duration of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clip | Effect | Duration | Timestamp | Sensorial Effect |
| Clip 1 | Cold air | 58 s | 00:19–00:59 | 40 s |
| Clip 2 | Cold air | 35 s | 00:03–00:30 | 27 s |
| Clip 3 | Hot air | 21 s | 00:12–00:28 | 16 s |
| Clip 4 | Hot air | 55 s | 00:30–00:55 | 25 s |
Figure 2Confidence interval plot of MOS with confidence in response to traditional multimedia and TEM clips.
Figure 3Experimental setup and apparatus used for data recording while watching TEM clips.
Figure 4Experimental procedure followed for physiological data acquisition in response to TEM clips.
Description of extracted features in this study for emotion recognition.
| Sensor | Feature Description |
|---|---|
| and left hemisphere respectively, and | |
| represents EEG band. | |
| EEG |
|
| mean of | |
| GSR data and | |
| GSR | |
| PPG | HR = Number of beats in a minute. |
| HRV = Time interval between heart beats. |
Figure 5Recorded SAM scores in response to four TEM clips.
Classification performance for emotion recognition using EEG, GSR, PPG, and modality level fusion in response to TEM content.
| Modality | Accuracy | MAE | RMSE | RAE | RRSE | Kappa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEG | 75.00% | 0.13 | 0.35 | 40.13 | 84.73 | 0.62 |
| GSR | 72.61% | 0.14 | 0.35 | 42.68 | 86.15 | 0.59 |
| PPG | 78.57% | 0.11 | 0.31 | 33.13 | 75.18 | 0.68 |
| EEG+GSR | 69.04% | 0.13 | 0.28 | 39.30 | 69.54 | 0.57 |
| EEG+PPG | 72.61% | 0.13 | 0.32 | 37.97 | 79.25 | 0.60 |
| GSR+PPG | 75.00% | 0.12 | 0.30 | 35.83 | 72.93 | 0.63 |
| EEG+GSR+PPG | 79.76% | 0.11 | 0.31 | 33.23 | 76.06 | 0.69 |
Confusion matrices for emotion recognition using (a) EEG, (b) GSR, (c) PPG, and (d) MLF (EEG+GSR+PPG) in response to TEM content.
| a | b | c | d | Classified as | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | a = Relaxed | 66.7% | 94.0% |
| 0 | 15 | 6 | 1 | b = Sad | 68.2% | 91.9% |
| 4 | 2 | 33 | 1 | c = Happy | 82.5% | 80.0% |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 | d = Angry | 69.2% | 97.2% |
| (a) EEG | ||||||
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | a = Relaxed | 77.8% | 94.7% |
| 0 | 18 | 5 | 0 | b = Sad | 81.8% | 91.9% |
| 2 | 3 | 29 | 5 | c = Happy | 72.5% | 77.3% |
| 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | d = Angry | 53.8% | 94.4% |
| (b) GSR | ||||||
| 7 | 0 | 4 | 0 | a = Relaxed | 77.8% | 94.7% |
| 0 | 17 | 1 | 4 | b = Sad | 77.3% | 91.9% |
| 2 | 2 | 35 | 2 | c = Happy | 87.5% | 86.4% |
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 | d = Angry | 53.8% | 95.8% |
| (c) PPG | ||||||
| 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | a = Relaxed | 77.8% | 98.7% |
| 1 | 16 | 3 | 2 | b = Sad | 72.7% | 90.3% |
| 1 | 6 | 35 | 2 | c = Happy | 87.5% | 79.5% |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | d = Angry | 69.2% | 98.6% |
| (d) EEG+GSR+PPG | ||||||
Figure 6Precision, recall, and F-score in response to TEM using EEG, GSR, PPG, and MLF.
Performance comparison of the proposed emotion recognition system in response to TEM with state-of-the-art methods.
| Method | Modality | Emotions | No. of | No. of | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEM/Video Clips | Users (F/M) | ||||
| [ | Eye gaze, Heart | Enjoyment, Perception | 6 (TEM) | 24 (9/15) | - |
| rate wrist band | |||||
| [ | EEG | Happy, Angry, Sad, Relaxed | 2 (TEM) | 21 (10/11) | 63.41% |
| [ | EEG | Happy, Angry, Sad, Relaxed | 2 (TEM) | 21 (10/11) | 76.19% |
| [ | RSP and HRV | Happy, Angry, Sad, Fear, Surprise, Disgust | 6 (video) | 49 (19/30) | 94.02% |
| [ | PPG, EMG, EDA | Happy, Sad, Disgust, Relaxed, Neutral | 40 (video) | 32 (16/16) | 89.53% |
| Proposed | EEG, GSR, PPG | Happy, Angry, Sad, Relaxed | 4 (Video) | 21 (10/11) | 70.01% |
| Proposed | EEG | Happy, Angry, Sad, Relaxed | 4 (TEM) | 21 (10/11) | 75.00% |
| Proposed | EEG, GSR, PPG | Happy, Angry, Sad, Relaxed | 4 (TEM) | 21 (10/11) | 79.76% |