| Literature DB >> 34193915 |
Shuji Shinohara1, Hiroyuki Toda2, Mitsuteru Nakamura3, Yasuhiro Omiya4, Masakazu Higuchi3, Takeshi Takano4, Taku Saito2, Masaaki Tanichi2, Shuken Boku5, Shunji Mitsuyoshi3, Mirai So6, Aihide Yoshino2, Shinichi Tokuno3.
Abstract
In this research, we propose a new index of emotional arousal level using sound pressure change acceleration, called the emotional arousal level voice index (EALVI), and investigate the relationship between this index and depression severity. First, EALVI values were calculated from various speech recordings in the interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database, and the correlation with the emotional arousal level of each voice was examined. The resulting correlation coefficient was 0.52 (n = 10,039, p < 2.2 × 10-16). We collected a total of 178 datasets comprising 10 speech phrases and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of outpatients with major depression at the Ginza Taimei Clinic (GTC) and the National Defense Medical College (NDMC) Hospital. The correlation coefficients between the EALVI and HAM-D scores were - 0.33 (n = 88, p = 1.8 × 10-3) and - 0.43 (n = 90, p = 2.2 × 10-5) at the GTC and NDMC, respectively. Next, the dataset was divided into "no depression" (HAM-D < 8) and "depression" groups (HAM-D ≥ 8) according to the HAM-D score. The number of patients in the "no depression" and "depression" groups were 10 and 78 in the GTC data, and 65 and 25 in the NDMC data, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean EALVI values between the two groups in both the GTC and NDMC data (p = 8.9 × 10-3, Cliff's delta = 0.51 and p = 1.6 × 10-3; Cliff's delta = 0.43, respectively). The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve when discriminating both groups by EALVI was 0.76 in GTC data and 0.72 in NDMC data. Indirectly, the data suggest that there is some relationship between emotional arousal level and depression severity.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34193915 PMCID: PMC8245525 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92982-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Ten phrases used for analysis.
| Phrase number | Phrase in Japanese | Purpose (meaning) |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | I-ro-ha-ni-ho-he-to | Non-emotional (similar to “a-b-c”) |
| P2 | Honjitsu ha seiten nari | Non-emotional (It is fine today) |
| P5 | Mukashi aru tokoro ni | Non-emotional (Once upon a time, there lived) |
| P11 | Garapagosu shotou | Check pronunciation (Galápagos Islands) |
| P12 | Tsukarete guttari shiteimasu | Emotional (I am tired/dead tired) |
| P13 | Totemo genki desu | Emotional (I am very cheerful) |
| P14 | Kinou ha yoku nemuremashita | Emotional (I was able to sleep well yesterday) |
| P15 | Shokuyoku ga arimasu | Emotional (I have an appetite) |
| P16 | Okorippoi desu | Emotional (I am irritable) |
| P17 | Kokoroga odayaka desu | Emotional (My heart is calm) |
Participants’ information.
| Health care facility | Sex | Number of participants | Mean age ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTC | Female | 55 | 88 | 31.6 ± 8.6 | 32.0 ± 7.9 |
| Male | 33 | 32.5 ± 6.5 | |||
| NDMC | Female | 44 | 90 | 62.0 ± 13.1 | 55.2 ± 14.8 |
| Male | 46 | 48.8 ± 13.5 | |||
Figure 1(a) Direction of acceleration. Note: Acceleration toward the center is positive, and acceleration away from the center is negative. (b) Acceleration for rough waveform. Note: The more the waveform crosses the centerline, the greater the proportion of acceleration towards the center. (c) Waveform when there is a bias between two adjacent velocity vectors. Note: When the absolute values and of two adjacent velocity vectors differ greatly, the entire waveform tends to be smooth.
Figure 2The number of utterances for each emotion category. Note: The number of utterances classified in “disgusted” was 2. Additionally, ang = angry; exc = excited; fea = fearful; sur = surprised; fru = frustrated; hap = happy; neu = neutral; sad = sad; dis = disgusted.
Figure 3The mean emotional arousal level and mean EALVI value for each emotion category. Note: Error bars represent standard error. Additionally, ang = angry; exc = excited; fea = fearful; sur = surprised; fru = frustrated; hap = happy; neu = neutral; sad = sad; dis = disgusted.
Mean scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).
| Group | Sex | Number of participants | Mean age ± SD | Mean HAM-D Score ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No depression (HAM-D < 8) | Female | 3 | 29.7 ± 8.1 | 5.3 ± 1.7 | 4.8 ± 1.3 |
| Male | 7 | 29.6 ± 4.0 | 4.6 ± 1.6 | ||
| Depression (HAM-D ≧ 8) | Female | 52 | 31.8 ± 8.5 | 23.9 ± 8.5 | 24.4 ± 8.5 |
| Male | 26 | 33.3 ± 6.7 | 25.4 ± 8.4 | ||
| No depression (HAM-D < 8) | Female | 38 | 63.7 ± 12.8 | 1.8 ± 1.9 | 2.2 ± 2.2 |
| Male | 27 | 52.3 ± 15.2 | 2.7 ± 2.4 | ||
| Depression (HAM-D ≧ 8) | Female | 6 | 51.2 ± 7.6 | 9.3 ± 1.8 | 15.3 ± 7.2 |
| Male | 19 | 43.8 ± 7.6 | 17.2 ± 7.2 | ||
Figure 4The mean EALVI value for the “depression” and “no depression” groups, by facility. Note: Error bars represent standard error. **(p < 0.01).
Results of multiple regression analyses on HAM-D scores.
| Independent variable | GTC | NDMC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EALVI | − 0.35** | − 0.33** | − 0.28* | − 0.43*** |
| Age | 0.0042 | − 0.032 | − 0.30** | − 0.43*** |
| Sex | − 0.14 | − 0.092 | 0.12 | 0.40*** |
| R-square | 0.13** | 0.30*** | ||
| Adjusted R-square | 0.097 | 0.27 | ||
***(p < 1.0 × 10−3), **(p < 1.0 × 10−2), *(p < 5.0 × 10−2). β denotes the standardized partial regression coefficient. r represents the correlation coefficient between HAM-D score and each independent variable.
Figure 5(a) The mean of the EALVI values of the “no depression” and “depression” groups for each phrase at the GTC. Note: Error bars represent standard error. (b) The mean of the EALVI values of the “no depression” and “depression” groups for each phrase at the NDMC Hospital. Note: Error bars represent standard error.
A summary of classification performance between no depression and depression groups by the EALVI.
| Phrase | Effect sizeb | Area under the curve (AUC) | Correlation coefficient | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTC | NDMC | GTC | NDMC | GTC | NDMC | GTC | NDMC | |
| P1 | 1.9 | 5.6 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.73 | 0.69 | − 0.27* | − 0.34** |
| P2 | 2.6 | 0.43 | 0.72 | − 0.28** | − | |||
| P5 | 8.9 | 0.36 | 0.68 | − 0.22* | − 0.38*** | |||
| P11 | 8.6 | 5.3 | 0.51 | 0.38 | 0.76 | 0.69 | − 0.25* | − 0.37*** |
| P12 | 1.2 | 5.8 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.75 | 0.69 | − 0.25* | − 0.34** |
| P13 | 1.7 | 6.6 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.73 | 0.69 | − 0.30** | − 0.38*** |
| P14 | 7.6 | 1.9 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.76 | 0.71 | − | − 0.41*** |
| P15 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 0.67 | − 0.26* | − 0.35*** |
| P16 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0.61 | 0.71 | − 0.21 | − 0.39*** |
| P17 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.59 | 0.63 | − 0.21* | − 0.35*** |
| Total | 8.9 | 1.6 | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.76 | 0.72 | − 0.33** | − 0.43*** |
The table shows the p values obtained by the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the effect sizes by Cliff’s delta, the AUC, and the correlation coefficient between the HAM-D and EALVI for each phrase of both facilities. The minimum p-value, maximum effect size, maximum AUC, and maximum correlation for each hospital are shown in bold fonts.
***(p < 1.0 × 10−3), **(p < 1.0 × 10−2), *(p < 5.0 × 10−2).
aBy Wilcoxon rank sum test.
bBy Cliff’s delta.