| Literature DB >> 33175234 |
Francesco Luke Siena1, Michael Vernon1, Paul Watts1, Bill Byrom2, David Crundall1, Philip Breedon3.
Abstract
This proof-of-concept study aimed to assess the ability of a mobile application and cloud analytics software solution to extract facial expression information from participant selfie videos. This is one component of a solution aimed at extracting possible health outcome measures based on expression, voice acoustics and speech sentiment from video diary data provided by patients. Forty healthy volunteers viewed 21 validated images from the International Affective Picture System database through a mobile app which simultaneously captured video footage of their face using the selfie camera. Images were intended to be associated with the following emotional responses: anger, disgust, sadness, contempt, fear, surprise and happiness. Both valence and arousal scores estimated from the video footage associated with each image were adequate predictors of the IAPS image scores (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04 respectively). 12.2% of images were categorised as containing a positive expression response in line with the target expression; with happiness and sadness responses providing the greatest frequency of responders: 41.0% and 21.4% respectively. 71.2% of images were associated with no change in expression. This proof-of-concept study provides early encouraging findings that changes in facial expression can be detected when they exist. Combined with voice acoustical measures and speech sentiment analysis, this may lead to novel measures of health status in patients using a video diary in indications including depression, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder and PTSD amongst other conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical outcome assessments; Facial expression; Mental health; Video analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33175234 PMCID: PMC7658062 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-01671-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Syst ISSN: 0148-5598 Impact factor: 4.460
Fig. 1The VDMA and associated cloud analytics software solution
Valance and arousal scores assigned to per-frame dominant emotions extracted from video footage recorded by the VDMA, based on [18]
| Emotion | Valance | Arousal |
|---|---|---|
| Anger | 2 | 8 |
| Contempt | 2 | 8 |
| Disgust | 1 | 8 |
| Fear | 3 | 7 |
| Happiness | 8 | 3 |
| Sadness | 1.5 | 4.5 |
| Surprise | 5 | 8 |
| Neutral | 5 | 0 |
Participant characteristics
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | |
| Range | 21–57 |
| Mean [SD] | 30.9 [10.3] |
| Gender | |
| Female | 19 |
| Male | 20 |
| Not stated | 1 |
IAPS valence and arousal measures and corresponding values estimated from the VDMA
| Emotion | Valence (mean [SD]) | Arousal (mean [SD]) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAPS | VDMA | IAPS | VDMA | |
| Anger | 1.85 [1.28] | 3.71 [2.06] | 6.89 [2.18] | 5.13 [1.30] |
| Disgust | 2.14 [1.38] | 3.76 [2.20] | 6.54 [2.21] | 4.92 [1.18] |
| Sadness | 2.26 [1.50] | 3.84 [1.95] | 4.37 [2.09] | 4.95 [0.97] |
| Contempt | 2.30 [1.76] | 3.78 [1.99] | 6.21 [2.36] | 4.91 [0.93] |
| Fear | 3.63 [1.86] | 3.84 [2.08] | 6.69 [1.88] | 4.85 [0.95] |
| Surprise | 6.67 [1.82] | 4.32 [2.13] | 6.26 [2.11] | 4.74 [0.96] |
| Happiness | 7.71 [1.43] | 5.55 [2.40] | 4.45 [2.24] | 4.25 [1.29] |
Fig. 2Representative positive responder profiles
Fig. 4Representative non-responder (a, b) and false positive (c) profiles
Fig. 3Representative positive responder profiles with mixed profiles
Proportions of responders and non-responders from categorisation of expression response profile by IAPS image type
| Expression Category | Target Emotion (n) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anger | Contempt | Disgust | Fear | Happiness | Sadness | Surprise | TOTAL | |
| Responder | 6 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 48 | 25 | 2 | 100 |
| Positive responder | 3 (50%) | 5 (62.5%) | – | – | 44 (91.7%) | 22 (88%) | – | 74 (74%) |
| Positive-saturated | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (25%) | 5 (62.5%) | – | 2 (4.2%) | – | 1 (50%) | 11 (11%) |
| Positive-mixed | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (12.5%) | 3 (37.5%) | 2 (66.7%) | 2 (4.2%) | 2 (12%) | – | 12 (12%) |
| Positive-rebound | – | – | – | 1 (33.3%) | – | – | 1 (50%) | 2 (2%) |
| Non-responder | 111 | 109 | 109 | 114 | 69 | 92 | 115 | 719 |
| False positive | 25 (22.5%) | 24 (22%) | 33 (30.3%) | 22 (19.3%) | 4 (5.8%) | 7 (7.6%) | 21 (18.3%) | 136 (18.9%) |
| Non-responder | 86 (77.5%) | 85 (78%) | 76 (69.7%) | 92 (80.7%) | 65 (94.2%) | 85 (92.4%) | 94 (81.7%) | 583 (81.1%) |
Distribution of overall responder types of the participants (n = 39)
| Responder type | N = 39 |
|---|---|
| Responder | 2 (5.1%) |
| Responder (expressive) | 7 (17.9%) |
| Non-responder | 29 (74.4%) |
| Non-responder (expressive) | 1 (2.6%) |
Responder = 5–6 positive responses out of 21 IAPS images; Responder (expressive) = 5–9 positive responses and 5–10 false positives; Non-responder = 0–3 positive responses out of 21 IAPS images; Non-responder (expressive) = 4 positive responses and 8 false positives
Fig. 5Comparison of emotion self-rating vs. IAPS category for each image used