| Literature DB >> 33172146 |
Patrycja Romaniszyn-Kania1, Anita Pollak2, Marta Danch-Wierzchowska1, Damian Kania3, Andrzej P Myśliwiec3, Ewa Piętka1, Andrzej W Mitas1.
Abstract
Nowadays, the dynamic development of technology allows for the design of systems based on various information sources and their integration into hybrid expert systems. One of the areas of research where such systems are especially helpful is emotion analysis. The sympathetic nervous system controls emotions, while its function is directly reflected by the electrodermal activity (EDA) signal. The presented study aimed to develop a tool and propose a physiological data set to complement the psychological data. The study group consisted of 41 students aged from 19 to 26 years. The presented research protocol was based on the acquisition of the electrodermal activity signal using the Empatica E4 device during three exercises performed in a prototype Disc4Spine system and using the psychological research methods. Different methods (hierarchical and non-hierarchical) of subsequent data clustering and optimisation in the context of emotions experienced were analysed. The best results were obtained for the k-means classifier during Exercise 3 (80.49%) and for the combination of the EDA signal with negative emotions (80.48%). A comparison of accuracy of the k-means classification with the independent division made by a psychologist revealed again the best results for negative emotions (78.05%).Entities:
Keywords: GSR; JAWS; clusterisation; electrodermal activity; emotions analysis; psychological analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 33172146 PMCID: PMC7664429 DOI: 10.3390/s20216343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) A prototype of the D4S module for exercises in the standing position with measuring devices and (b) a belt fastened on the patient’s pelvis and a podoscope.
Figure 2During exercises in the standing position in the D4S module, the head is restrained from two sides to prevent sideways movements; pelvis is restrained by a belt to allow only anterior and posterior tilt.
Figure 3Workflow (grey means the input data, light blue is the preprocessing, dark blue denotes data classification, and yellow is the psychological analysis stage).
Figure 4Electrodermal Acvitity (EDA) signal with marked time markers indicating the beginning and end of the exercises: analysed time intervals.
Figure 5Example of the Electrodermal Activity signal (EDA) with Galvanic Skin Response (GSR).
Figure 6Histogram of coefficient of variation (CV) values.
Figure 7Histogram of Within-Cluster-Sum-of-Squares (WCSS) values.
Figure 8Dendrogram presenting the cluster hierarchy.
Distribution of psychological data within clusters.
| Threshold | Range | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JAWS | 44.5 | 12–60 | Positive | Negative |
| JAWS_pos | 18.5 | 6–30 | Positive | Neutral |
| JAWS_neg | 10 | 6–30 | Negative | Neutral |
Note: n, m—number of cases.
Descriptive statistics of psychological data.
| Variable | JAWS | JAWS_poz | JAWS_neg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 44.39 | 18.29 | 9.90 |
| Standard deviation | 5.25 | 5.51 | 3.51 |
| Median | 45 | 18 | 9 |
| Min | 33 | 6 | 6 |
| Max | 57 | 27 | 21 |
| Possible range | 12–60 | 6–30 | 6-30 |
Note: N = 41. JAWS—global scale, JAWS_pos—scale for positive emotions; JAWS_neg—scale for negative emotions.
Mean values of features during activity (by WCSS).
| Feature | Exercise 1 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard deviation | 0.232 | 0.103 | 0.102 |
| Quartile deviation | 0.341 | 0.184 | 0.167 |
| Coefficient of the slope of the regression line | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Number of GSRs | 7.634 | 1.683 | 1.341 |
| Energy of GSR | 3.898 | 4.482 | 4.513 |
| Minimum value | 3.510 | 4.563 | 4.972 |
| 4th order moment | 1.348 | 0.044 | 0.047 |
| 5th order moment | 2.739 |
| 0.043 |
| Skewness | 0.303 | 0.206 | 0.129 |
| Kurtosis | 3.256 | 4.707 | 5.109 |
| Root mean square | 3.885 | 4.707 | 5.109 |
| Entropy | 0.952 | 0.426 | 0.502 |
Comparison of the effect of classifiers.
| Exercise 1 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cluster tree | 51.22 | 60.98 | 39.02 | 60.98 | 39.02 | 60.98 |
| Cluster tree | 31.71 | 36.59 | 51.22 | 51.22 | 58.54 | 41.46 |
| Cluster tree | 19.51 | 36.59 | 21.95 | 36.59 | 48.29 | 48.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluation of the k-means classifier; accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (TPR), and specificity (TNR).
| Exercise 1 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ACC | 41.46 | 68.29 | 68.29 | 70.73 |
|
|
| TPR | 80.00 | 96.29 | 88.89 | 70.83 |
|
|
| TNR | 12.50 | 14.29 | 35.71 | 64.71 |
|
|
Evaluation of the k-means classifier for separate Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) evaluation.
| Exercise 3 + JAWS_pos | Exercise 3 + JAWS_neg | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ACC | 60.98 | 78.05 | 60.98 |
|
| TPR | 75.00 | 92.00 | 78.95 |
|
| TNR | 30.77 | 56.25 | 45.45 |
|
Evaluation of the k-means classifier for individual sets of features.
| Feature Set | EDA+JAWS | EDA+JAWS_pos | EDA+JAWS_neg | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | without | with PCA | without | with PCA | without | with PCA | |
| set 1 | ACC | 63.41 | 73.17 | 53.65 | 78.05 | 46.34 | 68.29 |
| TPR | 78.26 | 91.67 | 57.14 | 84.62 | 48.00 | 91.30 | |
| TNR | 44.44 | 52.94 | 50.00 | 66.67 | 43.75 | 38.89 | |
| set 2 | ACC | 58.53 | 68.29 | 51.22 | 78.05 | 60.98 |
|
| TPR | 76.19 | 84 | 70.00 | 88.89 | 64.71 |
| |
| TNR | 31.58 | 43.75 | 45.16 | 68.56 | 58.33 |
| |
| set 3 | ACC | 78.05 |
| 58.54 | 68.29 |
|
|
| TPR | 96.30 |
| 66.67 | 77.78 |
|
| |
| TNR | 42.86 |
| 42.11 | 66.67 |
|
| |
Comparison of the division of the participants according to the classifier and performed by expert psychologist.
| JAWS | JAWS_pos | JAWS_neg | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ACC | 65.85 | 73.17 | 60.98 | 73.17 | 63.41 |
|