| Literature DB >> 34960430 |
Hafeez Ur Rehman Siddiqui1, Hina Fatima Shahzad1, Adil Ali Saleem1, Abdul Baqi Khan Khakwani2, Furqan Rustam1, Ernesto Lee3, Imran Ashraf4, Sandra Dudley5.
Abstract
Emotion recognition gained increasingly prominent attraction from a multitude of fields recently due to their wide use in human-computer interaction interface, therapy, and advanced robotics, etc. Human speech, gestures, facial expressions, and physiological signals can be used to recognize different emotions. Despite the discriminating properties to recognize emotions, the first three methods have been regarded as ineffective as the probability of human's voluntary and involuntary concealing the real emotions can not be ignored. Physiological signals, on the other hand, are capable of providing more objective, and reliable emotion recognition. Based on physiological signals, several methods have been introduced for emotion recognition, yet, predominantly such approaches are invasive involving the placement of on-body sensors. The efficacy and accuracy of these approaches are hindered by the sensor malfunctioning and erroneous data due to human limbs movement. This study presents a non-invasive approach where machine learning complements the impulse radio ultra-wideband (IR-UWB) signals for emotion recognition. First, the feasibility of using IR-UWB for emotion recognition is analyzed followed by determining the state of emotions into happiness, disgust, and fear. These emotions are triggered using carefully selected video clips to human subjects involving both males and females. The convincing evidence that different breathing patterns are linked with different emotions has been leveraged to discriminate between different emotions. Chest movement of thirty-five subjects is obtained using IR-UWB radar while watching the video clips in solitude. Extensive signal processing is applied to the obtained chest movement signals to estimate respiration rate per minute (RPM). The RPM estimated by the algorithm is validated by repeated measurements by a commercially available Pulse Oximeter. A dataset is maintained comprising gender, RPM, age, and associated emotions which are further used with several machine learning algorithms for automatic recognition of human emotions. Experiments reveal that IR-UWB possesses the potential to differentiate between different human emotions with a decent accuracy of 76% without placing any on-body sensors. Separate analysis for male and female participants reveals that males experience high arousal for happiness while females experience intense fear emotions. For disgust emotion, no large difference is found for male and female participants. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study presents the first non-invasive approach using the IR-UWB radar for emotion recognition.Entities:
Keywords: machine learning; non-invasive emotion recognition; physiological signals; respiration rate; ultra-wide band
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960430 PMCID: PMC8707312 DOI: 10.3390/s21248336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Steps carried out in the research.
Figure 2The X4m300 IR-UWB radar used for data collection.
Figure 3UWB radar signals during chest movement.
Figure 4Subject sitting in front of radar while watching videos.
Figure 5Steps involved in data cleaning and acquiring respiration data.
List of hyperparameters used for experiments.
| Classifier | Hyperparameters |
|---|---|
| ETC | n_estimators = 200, random_state = 100, max_depth = 200, min_samples_split = 80 |
| ADB | n_estimators = 50, random_state = 100, learning_rate = 1.0 |
| GBM | max_depth = 100, n_estimators = 100, random_state = 42, min_samples_split = 90, min_samples_leaf = 10 |
| KNN | n_neighbors = 7, leaf_size = 1 |
| XGB | n_estimators = 50, max_depth = 100, learning_rate = 0.8 |
| HV | Base learners = XGB, ADA, GBM, KNN, voting = hard/majority |
| SV | Base learners = XGB, ADA, GBM, KNN, voting = soft |
Figure 6Architecture of the deep learning models used for experiments.
Figure 7The architecture of ensemble models, (a) Soft voting, and (b) Hard voting.
Figure 8Architecture of the proposed methodology.
Figure 9Data processed for RPM estimation, (a) Noisy data, and (b) Clean data.
Figure 10Detected peaks from the cleaned data.
Figure 11Pulse oximeter used for measuring RPM.
Results for validation experiments for RPM.
| Subject | Respiration Rate | |
|---|---|---|
| Pulse Oximeter | Proposed Method | |
| Participant 1 | 16 | 16 |
| Participant 1 | 19 | 19 |
| Participant 2 | 21 | 21 |
| Participant 2 | 22 | 22 |
| Participant 3 | 15 | 15 |
| Participant 3 | 12 | 12 |
| Participant 4 | 15 | 15 |
| Participant 4 | 17 | 17 |
| Participant 5 | 18 | 19 |
| Participant 5 | 16 | 16 |
| Participant 6 | 18 | 18 |
| Participant 6 | 20 | 20 |
| Participant 7 | 17 | 17 |
| Participant 7 | 19 | 19 |
| Participant 8 | 17 | 17 |
| Participant 8 | 15 | 15 |
| Participant 9 | 12 | 12 |
| Participant 9 | 14 | 14 |
| Participant 10 | 18 | 18 |
| Participant 10 | 17 | 17 |
Results for validation experiments for RPM in dynamic environment.
| Subject | Respiration Rate | |
|---|---|---|
| Pulse Oximeter | Proposed Method | |
| Participant 1 | 15 | 14 |
| Participant 1 | 17 | 16 |
| Participant 2 | 16 | 16 |
| Participant 2 | 14 | 15 |
| Participant 3 | 17 | 17 |
| Participant 3 | 20 | 19 |
| Participant 4 | 16 | 16 |
| Participant 4 | 18 | 17 |
| Participant 5 | 14 | 15 |
| Participant 5 | 20 | 19 |
| Participant 6 | 17 | 18 |
| Participant 6 | 16 | 17 |
| Participant 7 | 18 | 17 |
| Participant 7 | 17 | 19 |
| Participant 8 | 16 | 17 |
| Participant 8 | 14 | 14 |
Statistical T test to validate the RPM results.
| Statistical T Test | Static/Dynamic | Male/Female |
|---|---|---|
| df | 30 | 30 |
| cv | 1.697 | 1.697 |
| 0.920 | 0.945 | |
| t-statistic | 0.920 | 0.069 |
| alpha | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Average RPM of males and females During different emotions.
| Gender | Average RPM | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Happiness | Disgust | Fear | |
| Male | 19.56 | 19.35 | 19.85 |
| Female | 18.47 | 19.38 | 20.54 |
Sample records from the collected dataset.
| Subject | RPM | Gender | Age | Emotion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant 1 | 20 | 1 | 26 | 0 |
| Participant 2 | 20 | 1 | 27 | 0 |
| Participant 3 | 21 | 0 | 27 | 0 |
| Participant 4 | 22 | 1 | 24 | 1 |
| Participant 5 | 23 | 0 | 26 | 1 |
| Participant 6 | 20 | 1 | 30 | 1 |
| . | . | . | . | . |
| . | . | . | . | . |
| . | . | . | . | . |
Figure 12Feature importance of dataset attributes using RF.
Performance metrics with 90:10 train and test size.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETC | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.66 |
| ADB | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
| GBM | 0.79 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
| KNN | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.59 |
| XGB | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| EHV | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 |
| ESV | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.72 |
Performance metrics with 80:20 train and test size.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETC | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| ADB | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| GBM | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
| KNN | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| XGB | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| EHV | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
| ESV | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
Performance metrics with 70:30 train and test size.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETC | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
| ADB | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.72 |
| GBM | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| KNN | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.72 |
| XGB | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| EHV | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| ESV | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
Performance metrics with 60:40 train and test size.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETC | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.67 |
| ADB | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.68 |
| GBM | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.73 |
| KNN | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.63 |
| XGB | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| EHV | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.71 |
| ESV | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
Performance Metrices with 50:50 train and test size.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETC | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.63 |
| ADB | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.67 |
| GBM | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
| KNN | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.52 |
| XGB | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| EHV | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.61 |
| ESV | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.71 |
Performance of machine learning models with 10-fold cross validation.
| Classifier | Accuracy (±Std. Dev.) |
|---|---|
| ETC | 0.64 (±0.35) |
| ADB | 0.61 (±0.37) |
| GBM | 0.65 (±0.36) |
| KNN | 0.57 (±0.22) |
| XGB | 0.64 (±0.40) |
| EHV | 0.65 (±0.29) |
| ESV | 0.66 (±0.33) |
Performance of deep learning models with different train-test split ratios.
| Ratio | Classifier | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90:10 | MLP | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.60 |
| CNN | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.42 | |
| 80:20 | MLP | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.66 |
| CNN | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.54 | |
| 70:30 | MLP | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.61 |
| CNN | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.40 | |
| 60:40 | MLP | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.61 |
| CNN | 0.38 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.40 | |
| 50:50 | MLP | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.61 |
| CNN | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.42 |
Performance comparison with different emotion detection approaches.
| Reference | Feature Vector | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| [ | Respiration rate interval, low frequency, heart rate, high frequency, RSA power, RSA frequency, and RSA amplitude breathing frequency, breathing amplitude, RSA amplitude, ratio to respiratory oscillation, respiratory and RSA frequency difference, the phase difference of respiration and RSA, the slope of phase difference, and standard deviation. | 73% for liking, 72% for arousal, and 70% for valence |
| [ | Root-mean-square, intrinsic mode functions, ‘mean’, ‘max’, from respiration and ECG signal Respiration rate and heart rate | 80% |
| [ | Heart rate variability from ECG signal, respiration rate and amplitude from respiration signal. | 68.5% for arousal, 68.75% for valence |
| [ | Statistical features average, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation etc. | 55.45% for arousal, 59% for valence |
| [ | Air flow rate and volume | 80% |
| [ | Different statistical and time domain features | 79.2% for relax vs. joy, 77.8% for joy vs. sad, and 77.3% for joy vs. anger |
| Current study | RPM, Age and, Gender | 79% |