ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Feature selection for emotion recognition in speech: a comparative study of filter and wrapper methods.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feature selection is essential for enhancing the performance and reducing the complexity of speech emotion recognition models. This article evaluates various feature selection methods, including correlation-based (CB), mutual information (MI), and recursive feature elimination (RFE), against baseline approaches using three different feature sets: (1) all available features (Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), root mean square energy (RMS), zero crossing rate (ZCR), chromagram, spectral centroid frequency (SCF), Tonnetz, Mel spectrogram, and spectral bandwidth), totaling 170 features; (2) a five-feature subset (MFCC, RMS, ZCR, Chromagram, and Mel spectrogram), totaling 163 features; and (3) a six-feature subset (MFCC, RMS, ZCR, SCF, Tonnetz, and Mel spectrogram), totaling 157 features. Methods are compared based on precision, recall, F1-score, accuracy, and the number of features selected. Results show that using all features yields an accuracy of 61.42%, but often includes irrelevant data. MI with 120 features achieves the highest performance, with precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy at 65%, 65%, 65%, and 64.71%, respectively. CB methods with moderate thresholds also perform well, balancing simplicity and accuracy. RFE methods improve consistently with more features, stabilizing around 120 features.
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.