| Literature DB >> 35125934 |
Saiyed Umer1, Bibhas Chandra Dhara2, Anay Ghosh3, Muhammad Khurram Khan4, Ranjeet Kumar Rout5.
Abstract
A sentiment analysis system has been proposed in this paper for pain detection using cutting edge techniques in a smart healthcare framework. This proposed system may be eligible for detecting pain sentiments by analyzing facial expressions on the human face. The implementation of the proposed system has been divided into four components. The first component is about detecting the face region from the input image using a tree-structured part model. Statistical and deep learning-based feature analysis has been performed in the second component to extract more valuable and distinctive patterns from the extracted facial region. In the third component, the prediction models based on statistical and deep feature analysis derive scores for the pain intensities (no-pain, low-pain, and high-pain) on the facial region. The scores due to the statistical and deep feature analysis are fused to enhance the performance of the proposed method in the fourth component. We have employed two benchmark facial pain expression databases during experimentation, such as UNBC-McMaster shoulder pain and 2D Face-set database with Pain-expression. The performance concerning these databases has been compared with some existing state-of-the-art methods. These comparisons show the superiority of the proposed system.Entities:
Keywords: Healthcare; Pain expression; Recognition; Sentiment analysis; Smart
Year: 2022 PMID: 35125934 PMCID: PMC8799976 DOI: 10.1007/s10586-022-03552-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cluster Comput ISSN: 1386-7857 Impact factor: 1.809
Fig. 1Block diagram of the proposed system
Fig. 2Image preprocessing task for the proposed sentiment analysis system
Fig. 3Statistical based approach for feature representation from the facial region
Fig. 4The employed CNN architecture for the proposed system
The proposed CNN architecture for the input size with layers, output shape, image size and parameters
| Layers | Output shape | Image size | Parameters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block-1 | |||||||
| Conv2D( | (n, n, 32) | (96, 96, 32) | 896 | ||||
| Batch norm | (n, n, 32) | (96, 96, 32) | 128 | ||||
| Activation ReLU | (n, n, 32) | (96, 96, 32) | 0 | ||||
| Maxpool2D( | ( | (48, 48, 32) | 0 | ||||
| Dropout | ( | (48, 48, 32) | 0 | ||||
Description of UNBC image database for the proposed system
| 3-Class problem | Sample |
|---|---|
| No-pain (NP, | 40,029 |
| Low-pain (LP, | 2909 |
| High-pain (HP, | 5460 |
Fig. 5Some samples of the employed UNBC database
Fig. 6Some samples of the employed database
Description of image database for the proposed system
| 2-Class problem | Sample |
|---|---|
| No-pain ( | 298 |
| Pain ( | 298 |
Performance due to (P1) feature extraction followed by different machine learning classifiers
| 2-Class problem using UNBC database | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classifier | HoG | LBP | ||
| Accuracy (%) | F1-Score | Accuracy (%) | F1-Score | |
| Logistic regression | 74.28 | 0.7267 | 74.39 | 0.7266 |
| K-nearest neighbour | 71.33 | 0.7045 | 73.56 | 0.7285 |
| Decision tree | 75.44 | 0.7413 | 73.62 | 0.7182 |
| Random Forest | 74.45 | 0.7434 | 76.07 | 0.7597 |
| Support vector machine | 75.85 | 0.7405 | 76.87 | 0.7551 |
Fig. 7Performance due to different image partitioning methods discussed in Sect. 3.2
The proposed system’s performance using HoG and LBP statistical based approaches
| 2-Class problem using UNBC database | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scheme | HoG | LBP | ||
| Accuracy (%) | F1-Score | Accuracy (%) | F1-Score | |
| P1 | 75.85 | 0.7405 | 76.87 | 0.7551 |
| P4 | 78.34 | 0.7723 | 80.29 | 0.7977 |
The proposed system’s performance using deep learning-based approach
| 2-Class problem using UNBC database | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | F1-Score | Training-time (s) | Testing-time (s) |
| 81.54 | 0.7962 | 39.63 | 0.03 |
Performance due to fusion techniques in the proposed sentiment analysis system for the pain detection
| Method | 2-Class UNBC | 3-Class UNBC | 2-Class |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | Accuracy (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
| HoG | 78.34 | 79.14 | 61.40 |
| LBP | 80.29 | 80.08 | 63.12 |
| CNN | 81.54 | 81.33 | 74.59 |
| Sum-rule (HoG–LBP) | 80.39 | 80.13 | 63.40 |
| Sum-rule (HoG–CNN) | 81.54 | 81.27 | 69.52 |
| Sum-rule (LBP–CNN) | 81.45 | 81.11 | 70.81 |
| Sum-rule (HoG–LBP–CNN) | 81.33 | 81.21 | 72.65 |
| Product-rule (HoG–LBP) | 80.71 | 80.34 | 65.11 |
| Product-rule (HoG–CNN) | 81.02 | 81.56 | 71.54 |
| Product-rule (LBP–CNN) | 82.29 | 82.32 | 71.39 |
| Product-rule (HoG–LBP–CNN) | |||
| Weighted Sum-rule (HoG–LBP) | 79.92 | 78.93 | 71.03 |
| Weighted Sum-rule (HoG–CNN) | 80.71 | 80.21 | 73.85 |
| Weighted Sum-rule (LBP–CNN) | 81.29 | 81.23 | 74.45 |
| Weighted Sum-rule (HoG–LBP–CNN) | 81.67 | 81.23 | 74.19 |
Performance comparison of the proposed image-based sentiment analysis system with the other competing methods using UNBC-McMaster shoulder pain database
| Method | Accuracy (%) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Vgg16 [ | 76.84 | Class (3), Train/Test Split |
| ResNet50 [ | 79.32 | Class (3), Train/Test Split |
| Inception-v3 [ | 79.64 | Class (3), Train/Test Split |
| Werner et al. [ | 75.50 | Class (3), Train/Test Split |
| Lucey et al. [ | 81.80 | Class (3), Train/Test Split |
| Class (3), Train/Test Split |
Performance comparison of the proposed image-based sentiment analysis system with the other competing methods using database
| Method | Accuracy (%) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Vgg16 [ | 61.76 | Class (2), Train/Test Split |
| ResNet50 [ | 64.05 | Class (2), Train/Test Split |
| Inception-v3 [ | 63.19 | Class (2), Train/Test Split |
| Werner et al. [ | 65.19 | Class (2), Train/Test Split |
| Lucey et al. [ | 74.33 | Class (2), Train/Test Split |
| Class (2), Train/Test Split |