Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41591660›Full record

ReviewCognitive processing2026

Comprehensive survey on multimodal emotion detection with advances, challenges, and future directions in pairwise conversations.

Sireesha Chittepu, Sheshikala Martha, Debajyoty Banik

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Sireesha ChittepuSchool of CS and AI, SR University, Warangal, India.
Sheshikala MarthaSchool of CS and AI, SR University, Warangal, India.
Debajyoty BanikSchool of Engineering, Anurag University, Hyderabad, India. debajyoty.banik@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotion recognition is crucial for fostering effective interpersonal relationships and plays a significant role in affective interpersonal communications. Detecting emotions in pairwise communication has profound implications for enhancing human-computer interaction, advancing medical applications, and improving interpersonal communication analysis. This paper identifies the key challenges in emotion detection including the development of data fusion techniques, create diverse and high-quality datasets, improve model interpretability, and advance real-time processing capabilities. Current multi-modal emotion detection research predominantly focuses on emotions such as sadness, happiness, neutrality, anger, and disgust. Cognitive science presents a broader perspective, emphasizing the interaction between physiological responses and cognitive evaluations in the emotion recognition process. However, the analysis of micro-level expressions remains underdeveloped due to the lack of real-world datasets and effective fusion techniques. This review paper critically examines various fusion methodologies for integrating multiple modalities and presents a comparative study of deep learning approaches for emotion detection across these modalities. Advanced deep learning techniques, including attention mechanisms, transformers, and large language models (LLMs) explored in depth. This research serves as a benchmark for scholars and professionals in the field of affective computing and offers broader implications across technology, healthcare, education, and social sciences.

Indexed as

CommunicationDeep LearningEmotionsInterpersonal RelationsHumansAffective computingDeep learningFusion strategiesMulti-modal emotion detection (MMER)

Identifiers

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.