| Literature DB >> 33213065 |
Huan Lu1,2,3, Guangjie Yuan1,2,3, Jin Zhang1,2,3, Guangyuan Liu1,2,3.
Abstract
Love at first sight is a well-known and interesting phenomenon, and denotes the strong attraction to a person of the opposite sex when first meeting. As far as we know, there are no studies on the changes in physiological signals between the opposite sexes when this phenomenon occurs. Although privacy is involved, knowing how attractive a partner is may be beneficial to building a future relationship in an open society where both men and women accept each other. Therefore, this study adopts the photoplethysmography (PPG) signal acquisition method (already applied in wearable devices) to collect signals that are beneficial for utilizing the results of the analysis. In particular, this study proposes a love pulse signal recognition algorithm based on a PPG signal. First, given the high correlation between the impulse signals of love at first sight and those for physical attractiveness, photos of people with different levels of attractiveness are used to induce real emotions. Then, the PPG signal is analyzed in the time, frequency, and nonlinear domains, respectively, in order to extract its physiological characteristics. Finally, we propose the use of a variety of machine learning techniques (support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and extreme gradient enhancement (XGBoost)) for identifying the impulsive states of love, with or without feature selection. The results show that the XGBoost classifier has the highest classification accuracy (71.09%) when using the feature selection.Entities:
Keywords: PPG; feature selection; impulse of love at first sight; machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33213065 PMCID: PMC7698503 DOI: 10.3390/s20226572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Impulse of love at first sight (ILFS) emotion-induced experimental procedure.
Figure 2Block diagram of the impulse of love at first sight (ILFS) recognition algorithm.
Description of photoplethysmography (PPG) features.
| ID | Features | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 1 | Mean_HR | Mean of instantaneous heart rate |
| 2 | Mean_VP | Mean of the time from Valley to Peak |
| 3 | Mean_PV | Mean of the time from Peak to Valley |
| 4 | Mean_NNI | Mean of the time from Peak to Peak |
| 5 | Mean_VVI | Mean of the time from Valley to Valley |
|
| ||
| 6 | RMSSD | Root mean square of successive differences of NN interval |
| 7 | SDNN | Standard deviation of NN interval |
| 8 | SDSD | Standard deviation of successive differences of NN interval |
| 9 | Range_NN | Difference between the maximum and minimum NN interval |
| 10 | NN50 | Number of interval differences of successive NN interval greater than 50 ms |
| 11 | pNN50 | Corresponding percentage of NN50 |
| 12 | NN20 | Number of interval differences of successive NN interval greater than 20 ms |
| 13 | pNN20 | Corresponding percentage of NN20 |
| 14 | CVSD | Coefficient of variation of successive differences equal to the RMSSD divided by Mean_NNI |
| 15 | CVNNI | Coefficient of variation equal to the ratio of SDNN divided by Mean_NNI |
|
| ||
| 16 | LF | Total energy of NN interval in the low frequency band (0.04–0.15 Hz) |
| 17 | HF | Total energy of NN interval in the high frequency band (0.15–0.4 Hz) |
| 18 | LF/HF ratio | Ratio of LF power to HF power |
| 19 | Total_Power | Total energy of NN interval |
| 20 | nLFP | Normalized low frequency power |
| 21 | nHFP | Normalized high frequency power |
|
| ||
| 22 | SD1 | Standard deviation for T direction in Poincare plot |
| 23 | SD2 | Standard deviation for L direction in Poincare plot |
| 24 | SD12 | Ratio between SD2 and SD1 |
| 25 | CSI | Cardiac Sympathetic Index |
| 26 | CVI | Cardiac Vagal Index. |
Figure 3The waveform changes of PPG signal in two emotional states (ILFS was not generated (a) and ILFS was generated (b)).
Comparison of performance of different classifiers without feature selection.
| Classifier | F1 (%) | Acc (%) | Se (%) | Sp (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDA | 68.33 | 67.57 | 69.97 | 65.18 |
| SVM | 69.59 | 67.84 | 73.59 | 62.09 |
| XGBoost | 68.29 | 68.10 | 68.69 | 67.52 |
| RF | 68.07 | 67.57 | 69.12 | 66.03 |
Figure 4Results of the error rate of the four classifiers with different numbers of features.
Comparison of performance of different classifiers with feature selection.
| Classifier | F1 (%) | Acc (%) | Se (%) | Sp (%) | Selected Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDA | 71.98 | 70.04 | 75.29 | 64.76 | 5, 13, 17, 19, 21 |
| SVM | 69.84 | 68.96 | 71.88 | 66.03 | 16, 17 |
| XGBoost | 71.59 | 71.09 | 72.84 | 69.33 | 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17 |
| RF | 68.39 | 68.16 | 68.90 | 67.41 | 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, 22 |
Figure 5Comparison of classification accuracy of different classifiers without or with feature selection.