4.7 Review

A Review and Meta-Analysis of Multimodal Affect Detection Systems

期刊

ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/2682899

关键词

Measurement; Performance Affective computing; human-centered computing; evaluation; methodology; survey

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [ITR 0325428, HCC 0834847, DRL 1235958, 1122374]
  2. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [1235958] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Affect detection is an important pattern recognition problem that has inspired researchers from several areas. The field is in need of a systematic review due to the recent influx of Multimodal (MM) affect detection systems that differ in several respects and sometimes yield incompatible results. This article provides such a survey via a quantitative review and meta-analysis of 90 peer-reviewed MM systems. The review indicated that the state of the art mainly consists of person-dependent models (62.2% of systems) that fuse audio and visual (55.6%) information to detect acted (52.2%) expressions of basic emotions and simple dimensions of arousal and valence (64.5%) with feature-(38.9%) and decision-level (35.6%) fusion techniques. However, there were also person-independent systems that considered additional modalities to detect nonbasic emotions and complex dimensions using model-level fusion techniques. The meta-analysis revealed that MM systems were consistently (85% of systems) more accurate than their best unimodal counterparts, with an average improvement of 9.83% (median of 6.60%). However, improvements were three times lower when systems were trained on natural (4.59%) versus acted data (12.7%). Importantly, MM accuracy could be accurately predicted (cross-validated R-2 of 0.803) from unimodal accuracies and two system-level factors. Theoretical and applied implications and recommendations are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据