Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32330178›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A performance comparison of eight commercially available automatic classifiers for facial affect recognition.

Damien Dupré, Eva G Krumhuber, Dennis Küster, Gary J McKeown

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. More than just smiling: how positive emotions are expressed on the face.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mismatching Expressions: Spatiotemporal and Kinematic Differences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Facial Expressions.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Structural neuroanatomy of human facial behaviors.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Automating the analysis of facial emotion expression dynamics: A computational framework and application in psychotic disorders.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Damien DupréBusiness School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8610-1045
Eva G KrumhuberDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom.
Dennis KüsterDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8992-5648
Gary J McKeownDepartment of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the wake of rapid advances in automatic affect analysis, commercial automatic classifiers for facial affect recognition have attracted considerable attention in recent years. While several options now exist to analyze dynamic video data, less is known about the relative performance of these classifiers, in particular when facial expressions are spontaneous rather than posed. In the present work, we tested eight out-of-the-box automatic classifiers, and compared their emotion recognition performance to that of human observers. A total of 937 videos were sampled from two large databases that conveyed the basic six emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust) either in posed (BU-4DFE) or spontaneous (UT-Dallas) form. Results revealed a recognition advantage for human observers over automatic classification. Among the eight classifiers, there was considerable variance in recognition accuracy ranging from 48% to 62%. Subsequent analyses per type of expression revealed that performance by the two best performing classifiers approximated those of human observers, suggesting high agreement for posed expressions. However, classification accuracy was consistently lower (although above chance level) for spontaneous affective behavior. The findings indicate potential shortcomings of existing out-of-the-box classifiers for measuring emotions, and highlight the need for more spontaneous facial databases that can act as a benchmark in the training and testing of automatic emotion recognition systems. We further discuss some limitations of analyzing facial expressions that have been recorded in controlled environments.

Indexed as

AffectFacial ExpressionRecognition, PsychologyAdultAutomationFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID32330178
PMCPMC7182192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.