ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Emotion Recognition from Facial Expressions Considering Individual Differences in Emotional Intelligence.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Facial expression recognition (FER) in naturalistic settings is constrained by label ambiguity and variability in stimulus-response alignment. Adopting a data-centric perspective, this study examined whether emotional intelligence (EI)-stratified training data influence FER performance by treating EI as a qualitative factor associated with affective data consistency. Naturally elicited facial expressions were collected in a controlled emotion induction experiment with subjective arousal and valence ratings. Using response-driven labeling, neutral ratings were retained as indicators of ambiguity. Participants were grouped into High and Low EI based on the alignment between subjective evaluations and outputs from a pretrained affect estimator. Identical binary classifiers for arousal and valence recognition were trained while varying only the training data composition and evaluated across baseline, unambiguous, and ambiguous test sets using independent training repetitions with repetition-level statistical aggregation. EI-stratified training was associated with statistically detectable, context-dependent performance differences: group effects were observed primarily under baseline conditions and, to a lesser extent, under ambiguous conditions, whereas no reliable differences emerged under unambiguous conditions. Pooled discrimination differences were modest, but item-level analyses identified significant differences in classification correctness in specific task-condition combinations. Comparable patterns were observed across alternative backbone architectures. These findings indicate that FER performance in naturalistic contexts is influenced not only by model architecture but also by the statistical structure and internal coherence of the training data, supporting EI-informed data selection in ambiguity-prone scenarios.
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.