Unraveling emotional signatures: comparing physiological methods and algorithm-based recognition of spontaneous emotional facial expressions
Kissler, J. M.; Scholz, S.
Show abstract
Recognizing others emotions is central to social interaction. Traditional biological psychology infers emotional responding via laboratory measures, whereas contemporary computer vision algorithms claim to identify emotions unobtrusively from facial video. However, the validity of such algorithms for classifying spontaneous emotional responses occurring without explicit communicative intent remains debated. We compared established psychophysiological measures (EEG, facial EMG, EDA activity) with the open-source facial behavior toolkit OpenFace for classifying participants spontaneous responses during free viewing of happiness-inducing, disgust-inducing, and neutral pictures. Participants provided valence and arousal ratings and later selected the basic emotion that best matched their reaction which served as the classification criterion. Using within-participants single-trial support vector machine (SVM) classification, EEG achieved the highest accuracy (40%), followed by facial EMG (37%); OpenFace reached 36%. All methods except EDA exceeded chance performance (33.3%) and were lower compared to human raters (48%). Predictions declined slightly for across-participants SVMs, being at chance for OpenFace and EDA. The results indicate that in principle both, psychophysiological measures and video-derived facial action units, can capture diagnostically relevant aspects of emotional responding during picture viewing, but that their performance is limited when expressions are spontaneous and not produced for communicative purposes. Inter-individual variability in expressivity and physiological responding likely contributes to these limitations and should be considered when deploying automatic emotion recognition in research or applied settings.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.