ArticleScientific reports2026
A large scale dataset of emotion annotated physiological signals collected from a public exhibit.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the physiological underpinnings of emotion is challenging, owing in part to the limited sample size of available affective datasets. The aims of this study are (1) to curate and describe a large dataset of annotated elicited emotions and physiological signals (electrodermal activity, skin temperature and blood volume pulse) collected in a public unsupervised exhibit to be shared with the scientific community and; (2) to identify potential physiological signatures of emotional states. Participants watched four video clips designed to elicit one of five emotions (love, calm, sadness, fear, or frustration) while their physiological signals were captured from a fingertip sensor and then rated their experienced emotion (these 5 categories plus an "Other" option). The cleaned dataset consists of nearly 25,000 individuals of all ages and multiple cultural backgrounds, resulting in nearly 80,000 labelled video watching instances. 6- and 5-class classification (with or without "Other") resulted in an F1 score of 0.24 and 0.29, respectively. Using participants' subjectively reported emotion class as ground truth decreased classification accuracy compared to using the intended category of the video as ground truth. Notably a One Vs All (Fear vs all) classifier reached an F1 score of 0.88; however, this performance was based on a small and relatively homogeneous subset of the dataset. Overall, these findings suggest that while certain audiovisual stimuli may evoke consistent physiological profiles, these profiles do not generalize well to broader, more complex emotional states.
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.