ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Emotion Recognizing by a Robotic Solution Initiative (EMOTIVE Project).
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Coherent Robot Behavior and Embodiment in Emotion Perception and Recognition During Human-Robot Interaction: Experimental Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Assessing Feasibility of Cognitive Impairment Testing Using Social Robotic Technology Augmented with Affective Computing and Emotional State Detection Systems.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Telesurgery and telesurgical support using a double-surgeon cockpit system allowing manipulation from two locations.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Assistive Robots for Healthcare and Human-Robot Interaction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- User Profiling to Enhance Clinical Assessment and Human-Robot Interaction: A Feasibility Study.International journal of social robotics · 2023Article
- Emotion Recognition for Partial Faces Using a Feature Vector Technique.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmotion recognition skills are predicted to be fundamental features in social robots. Since facial detection and recognition algorithms are compute-intensive operations, it needs to identify methods that can parallelize the algorithmic operations for large-scale information exchange in real time. The study aims were to identify if traditional machine learning algorithms could be used to assess every user emotions separately, to relate emotion recognizing in two robotic modalities: static or motion robot, and to evaluate the acceptability and usability of assistive robot from an end-user point of view.
methodsTwenty-seven hospital employees (M = 12; F = 15) were recruited to perform the experiment showing 60 positive, negative, or neutral images selected in the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) database. The experiment was performed with the Pepper robot. Concerning experimental phase with Pepper in active mode, a concordant mimicry was programmed based on types of images (positive, negative, and neutral). During the experimentation, the images were shown by a tablet on robot chest and a web interface lasting 7 s for each slide. For each image, the participants were asked to perform a subjective assessment of the perceived emotional experience using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM). After participants used robotic solution, Almere model questionnaire (AMQ) and system usability scale (SUS) were administered to assess acceptability, usability, and functionality of robotic solution. Analysis wasperformed on video recordings. The evaluation of three types of attitude (positive, negative, andneutral) wasperformed through two classification algorithms of machine learning: k-nearest neighbors (KNN) and random forest (RF).
resultsAccording to the analysis of emotions performed on the recorded videos, RF algorithm performance wasbetter in terms of accuracy (mean ± sd = 0.98 ± 0.01) and execution time (mean ± sd = 5.73 ± 0.86 s) than KNN algorithm. By RF algorithm, all neutral, positive and negative attitudes had an equal and high precision (mean = 0.98) and F-measure (mean = 0.98). Most of the participants confirmed a high level of usability and acceptability of the robotic solution.
conclusionsRF algorithm performance was better in terms of accuracy and execution time than KNN algorithm. The robot was not a disturbing factor in the arousal of emotions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.