ArticlePloS one2022
Affective computing of multi-type urban public spaces to analyze emotional quality using ensemble learning-based classification of multi-sensor data.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of urban public spaces affects the emotional response of users; therefore, the emotional data of users can be used as indices to evaluate the quality of a space. Emotional response can be evaluated to effectively measure public space quality through affective computing and obtain evidence-based support for urban space renewal. We proposed a feasible evaluation method for multi-type urban public spaces based on multiple physiological signals and ensemble learning. We built binary, ternary, and quinary classification models based on participants' physiological signals and self-reported emotional responses through experiments in eight public spaces of five types. Furthermore, we verified the effectiveness of the model by inputting data collected from two other public spaces. Three observations were made based on the results. First, the highest accuracies of the binary and ternary classification models were 92.59% and 91.07%, respectively. After external validation, the highest accuracies were 80.90% and 65.30%, respectively, which satisfied the preliminary requirements for evaluating the quality of actual urban spaces. However, the quinary classification model could not satisfy the preliminary requirements. Second, the average accuracy of ensemble learning was 7.59% higher than that of single classifiers. Third, reducing the number of physiological signal features and applying the synthetic minority oversampling technique to solve unbalanced data improved the evaluation ability.
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.