4.7 Article

Is heart rate variability (HRV) an adequate tool for evaluating human emotions? - A focus on the use of the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 251, Issue -, Pages 192-196

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.02.025

Keywords

Emotion; Visual stimulation; R-R interval; Self-Assessment Manikin; Correlation

Categories

Funding

  1. Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine [K16813, K17070]
  2. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [K17070] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Because human emotion varies greatly among individuals and is a qualitative factor, measuring it with any degree of accuracy is very difficult. Heart rate variability (HRV), which is used in evaluations of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), is used to evaluate human emotions. This study examines the validity of HRV as a tool to evaluate emotions using the International Affective Picture System (TAPS). For experimentation, five photos were selected for each of the categories of happy, unhappy, and neutral from among the images provided by the LAPS. The subjects were required to complete the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) after being shown each picture. We extracted the R-R interval (RRI) value of each photo from the PPG, as well as the valence, arousal, and dominance value of each photo from the SAM to analyze their correlation. As results, there was significant positive correlation with valence and significant negative correlation with dominance in the photo simulation associated with the unhappy emotion, only when the arousal value exceeded a critical value. Therefore, the findings of this study suggest that it is possible to use an HRV-based evaluation only when a high level of emotion is induced by visual stimulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available