Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36236658›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech.

Cem Doğdu, Thomas Kessler, Dana Schneider, Maha Shadaydeh, Stefan R Schweinberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Digital Voice Analysis as a Biomarker of Acromegaly.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Cem DoğduDepartment of Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstraße 26, 07743 Jena, Germany.
Thomas KesslerDepartment of Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstraße 26, 07743 Jena, Germany.
Dana SchneiderDepartment of Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstraße 26, 07743 Jena, Germany.
Maha ShadaydehMichael Stifel Center Jena for Data-Driven and Simulation Science, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6455-2400
Stefan R SchweinbergerMichael Stifel Center Jena for Data-Driven and Simulation Science, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5762-0188

Funding

Carl Zeiss Foundation P2017-01-003Competence Center for Interdisciplinary Prevention at Friedrich Schiller University 1.2.14.22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vocal emotion recognition (VER) in natural speech, often referred to as speech emotion recognition (SER), remains challenging for both humans and computers. Applied fields including clinical diagnosis and intervention, social interaction research or Human Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly benefit from efficient VER algorithms. Several feature sets were used with machine-learning (ML) algorithms for discrete emotion classification. However, there is no consensus for which low-level-descriptors and classifiers are optimal. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of machine-learning algorithms with several different feature sets. Concretely, seven ML algorithms were compared on the Berlin Database of Emotional Speech: Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP), J48 Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine with Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), Random Forest (RF), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Simple Logistic Regression (LOG) and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) with 10-fold cross validation using four openSMILE feature sets (i.e., IS-09, emobase, GeMAPS and eGeMAPS). Results indicated that SMO, MLP and LOG show better performance (reaching to 87.85%, 84.00% and 83.74% accuracies, respectively) compared to RF, DT, MLR and KNN (with minimum 73.46%, 53.08%, 70.65% and 58.69% accuracies, respectively). Overall, the emobase feature set performed best. We discuss the implications of these findings for applications in diagnosis, intervention or HCI.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSpeechAlgorithmsEmotionsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector Machineemotional speech databasefeature setmachine learningspeechvocal emotion recognition

Identifiers

PMID36236658
PMCPMC9571288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.