ArticleHeliyon2024
Investigation of different ML approaches in classification of emotions induced by acute stress.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning is becoming a common tool in monitoring emotion. However, methodological studies of the processing pipeline are scarce, especially ones using subjective appraisals as ground truth. New method: A novel protocol was used to induce cognitive load and physical discomfort, and emotional dimensions (arousal, valence, and dominance) were reported after each task. The performance of five common ML models with a versatile set of features (physiological features, task performance data, and personality trait) was compared in binary classification of subjectively assessed emotions. Results: The psychophysiological responses proved the protocol was successful in changing the mental state from baseline, also the cognitive and physical tasks were different. The optimization and performance of ML models used for emotion detection were evaluated. Additionally, methods to account for imbalanced classes were applied and shown to improve the classification performance. Comparison with existing methods: Classification of human emotional states often assumes the states are determined by the stimuli. However, individual appraisals vary. None of the past studies have classified subjective emotional dimensions with a set of features including biosignals, personality and behavior. Conclusion: Our data represent a typical setup in affective computing utilizing psychophysiological monitoring: N is low compared to number of features, inter-individual variability is high, and class imbalance cannot be avoided. Our observations are a) if possible, include features representing physiology, behavior and personality, b) use simple models and limited number of features to improve interpretability, c) address the possible imbalance, d) if the data size allows, use nested cross-validation.
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.