Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42770162›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on affective computing

Strength in Numbers, Power in Subjectivity: Scalable Modeling of Individual Annotators for Emotion Recognition Within and Across Corpora.

James Tavernor, Emily Mower Provost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on affective computing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

James TavernorUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Emily Mower ProvostUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.

Funding

Detecting dynamic fluctuations in emotion, mood, and functioning: A digital phenotyping approach to clinical monitoring in bipolar disorderR01MH130411 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MELVIN G MCINNIS, Emily Kaplan Mower Provost · 2024 to 2026
$2.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH130411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotion expression and perception are nuanced, complex, and highly subjective processes. As a result, when multiple annotators label emotional data, the resulting labels generally contain high degrees of variability. This variability is often addressed by averaging annotator labels into a single averaged or majority-voted ground-truth label. However, an averaged label may mask variation among the perception of individuals, which is at the core of subjective perception. This is an issue because inter-annotator variability contains valuable information about both the sample being evaluated and the annotators themselves. Previous works have proposed methods to retain this variability by predicting distributions of annotator perception, rather than a single label. However, distributions lose the information about the individual annotators. Other approaches have instead learned models of individual annotators. Yet, computational complexity limited these approaches to considering only small sets of annotators. In this paper, we present a new approach that learns to efficiently model arbitrarily large numbers of individual annotators. We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach, compared to previous state-of-the-art approaches, and the insights that can be gleaned once annotator variability is retained. For the first time, it is possible to ask when it is beneficial to model every single annotator, as an individual, vs. when it is beneficial instead to model a more limited number of annotators who have provided ample data.

Indexed as

emotion recognitionhuman-computer interactioninter-annotator agreementspeech recognition

Identifiers

PMID42770162
PMCPMC13593162

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.