| Literature DB >> 34883853 |
Luz Santamaria-Granados1, Juan Francisco Mendoza-Moreno1, Angela Chantre-Astaiza2, Mario Munoz-Organero3, Gustavo Ramirez-Gonzalez4.
Abstract
The collection of physiological data from people has been facilitated due to the mass use of cheap wearable devices. Although the accuracy is low compared to specialized healthcare devices, these can be widely applied in other contexts. This study proposes the architecture for a tourist experiences recommender system (TERS) based on the user's emotional states who wear these devices. The issue lies in detecting emotion from Heart Rate (HR) measurements obtained from these wearables. Unlike most state-of-the-art studies, which have elicited emotions in controlled experiments and with high-accuracy sensors, this research's challenge consisted of emotion recognition (ER) in the daily life context of users based on the gathering of HR data. Furthermore, an objective was to generate the tourist recommendation considering the emotional state of the device wearer. The method used comprises three main phases: The first was the collection of HR measurements and labeling emotions through mobile applications. The second was emotional detection using deep learning algorithms. The final phase was the design and validation of the TERS-ER. In this way, a dataset of HR measurements labeled with emotions was obtained as results. Among the different algorithms tested for ER, the hybrid model of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks had promising results. Moreover, concerning TERS, Collaborative Filtering (CF) using CNN showed better performance.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; IoT; LSTM; emotion detection; heart rate; recommender system; tourist experience; wearable; xiaomi mi band
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883853 PMCID: PMC8659453 DOI: 10.3390/s21237854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Performance of DCNN and shallow ML algorithms using AMIGOS dataset [16].
| Classifier of Emotion Detection | GSR Signals | ECGL Signals | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arousal | Valence | Arousal | Valence | |||||
| Accuracy | F1-Score | Accuracy | F1-Score | Accuracy | F1-Score | Accuracy | F1-Score | |
| Naive Bayes [ | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.59 | 0.57 | ||||
| Nearest Neighbors | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 0.57 |
| Linear Discriminant Analysis | 0.67 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.65 |
| Linear Support Vector | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.6 | 0.61 | 0.55 |
| Multi-Layer Perceptron | 0.68 | 0.6 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.51 |
| AdaBoost | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.7 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.58 |
| Random Forest | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.59 |
| DCNN [ | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
Emotion detection studies based on physiological data from wearable devices.
| Reseach | Wearable | Method | Emotion Detection | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | Low-Cost | Dataset | Experiment | Participants | Signal | Classifier | Accuracy | |
| [ | Electrodes | No | DEAP | Controlled | 32 | GSR and PPG: Covariance matrix | Random Forest | 0.72 A and 0.71 V |
| [ | Electrodes | No | DEAP | Controlled | 32 | EEG: Time domain | LERM | 0.73 A and 0.74 V |
| [ | Electrodes | No | AMIGOS | Controlled | 40 | GSR and ECG: SCR peak and R-peak | DCNN | A (0.71, 0.81) and V (0.75, 0.71) |
| [ | Garmin Vívosmart 3 | No | (own dataset created) | Controlled | 17 | PPG: IBI (Frequency and Time domain) | Bayesian DNN | F1 score: 0.7 V |
| [ | Empatica E4 | No | (own dataset created) | Controlled | 20 | PPG: HR | SVM | 0.46: HVHA, HVLA, LVHA, LVLA |
| This study | Xiaomi mi band | Yes | (own dataset created) | Semi controlled | 18 | PPG: HR | 1D CNN-LSTM | 0.44: HVHA, HVLA, LVHA, LVLA |
Studies of recommendation systems based on emotions.
| Research | Dataset | Algorithms | Similarity | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 312,896 Tongcheng reviews and 5722 destinations | UBCF, IBCF, and TF-IDF (scenery, cost, infrastructure, accommodations, traffic, and travel sentiments) | CS | MAE and RMSE: Hybrid CF (0.63, 0.97) and TopicMF (0.76, 1.04) |
| [ | TripAdvisor and Yelp: 48,253 POI, 33,576 users, and 738,995 ratings. | Emotion Induced UBCF and Emotion Induced IBCF | CS | Precision: 0.74 UBCF, 0.66 IBCF, and 0.67 Hybrid |
| [ | 312,896 Tongcheng reviews and 5722 destinations | Syn-ST SVD++ model: sentiment tendency and temporal factors dynamic | PCC | MAE and RMSE: Syn-ST SVD++ (1.04, 0.91) |
| [ | TripAdvisor and Yelp: 48,253 POI, 33,576 users, and 738,995 ratings. | HSS (AKNN and SPTW) and AbiPRS (Fuzzy-C-means). | User cluster | Precision and MAE: HSS (0.81, 0.63) and AbiPRS (0.77, 0.73) |
| This study | OntoTouTra [ | CF-CNN and CBF | CS | MAE and RMSE: CBF (0.15, 0.23) and CF-CNN (0.12, 0.16) |
Figure 1Method overview.
Figure 2Physiological dataset with a distribution of classes: (a) by emotional quadrants; (b) by affective states.
Figure 3Scenario and context.
Figure 4Data model of the TERS-ER architecture.
Figure 5Containers of technological infrastructure.
Figure 6The mobile app’s graphic interface used by the participants: (a) MyEmotionBand for recording emotional state, activity, and location; (b) MFB [45] for HR measurement.
Figure 7A participant’s sample of HR data with the configuration of a dynamic window adjusted to the HR and emotion timestamp.
Figure 81D CNN LSTM Architecture.
Figure 9Collaborative Filtering based on 1D CNN and FC layers.
Figure 10Multiclass classification for ES dataset of 30 HR instances: (a) with 60 s between instances; (b) with five seconds between instances.
ES dataset performance with CNN-based ER models and four-class balancing methods.
| Model | Data Balancing | Dataset | Train Accuracy | Test Accuracy | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labels | HR Slices | Better | Average | Better | Average | ||
| DCNN [ | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.41 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVLA, LVHA | 200, 456 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.44 | 0.43 | |
| 1D CNN, Flatten, and FC | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.41 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVLA, LVHA | 200, 456 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.46 | 0.43 | |
| 1D CNN, LSTM, and FC | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.42 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVLA, LVHA | 200, 456 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.44 | |
ES dataset performance with CNN-based ER models and three-class balancing methods.
| Model | Data Balancing | Dataset | Train Accuracy | Test Accuracy | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labels | HR Slices | Better | Average | Better | Average | ||
| DCNN [ | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.45 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVHA | 456 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.46 | |
| 1D CNN, Flatten, and FC | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.46 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVHA | 456 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.47 | |
| 1D CNN, LSTM, and FC | K-SMOTE | HVHA, HVLA, | 1231, 1141, | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0.47 |
| K-SMOTE + TL | LVHA | 456 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.47 | |
Figure 11Training and validation of the 1D CNN LSTM model in the Emotional Slices (ES) dataset. The accuracy outcomes correspond to the classification of: (a) four emotional quadrants in Table 4; (b) three emotional quadrants in Table 5.
Figure 12CBF evaluation: (a) MAE; (b) RMSE.
Figure 13Recommender system evaluation over (a) MAE of CF-CNN model; (b) MAE of CF-Net model; (c) RMSE of CF-CNN model; (d) RMSE of CF-Net model.
Figure 14Loss value of CF-CNN (a) MAE; (b) RMSE.
Figure 15TERS-ER Evaluation.
Performance statistics with different TERS algorithms.
| Algorithm | MAE | RMSE |
|---|---|---|
| CBF (This study) | 0.152 | 0.237 |
| Random [ | 0.172 | 0.256 |
| SVD [ | 0.153 | 0.237 |
| SVD++ [ | 0.153 | 0.237 |
| CF-CNN (This study) | 0.124 | 0.168 |
| CF-Net [ | 0.128 | 0.175 |
Differences between emotion recognition studies.
| Our Study | Related Studies | |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Daily life | Laboratory |
| Devices | Cheap wearable | Specialized sensors and wearables |
| Annotators | Self-annotation (MEB app) | Team of annotators (external and internal) |
| Participants | 18 | 20 (average) |
| Stimuli | Daily life–spontaneous | Videos and images–controlled |
| Emotion duration | Variable | Constant (1–2 min) |
| Emotion annotation | Voluntary | Mandatory |
| Experiment duration | 11 weeks | 1 day |
| Signals | HR (PPG) | PPG, GSR, EEG, ECG (multi-channel) |
| Signal recording | Sampling (third-party app) | Continous |
| Domain | Tourist | Various |