Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801031›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering letters2026

Explainability guided feature selection for speech emotion recognition using SHAP and permutation importance.

S I M M Raton Mondol, Sangmin Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering letters, 2026. 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.

S I M M Raton MondolDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Korea.
Sangmin LeeDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6648-6099

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) systems commonly rely on high-dimensional handcrafted acoustic feature sets, which increase computational complexity, risk overfitting, and reduce interpretability. To address these challenges, we propose an explainability-driven, redundancy-aware feature selection framework that integrates SHAP-based attribution with permutation-based performance importance through a unified rank-sum criterion. A correlation-controlled redundancy penalty is further introduced to mitigate multicollinearity while preserving acoustically meaningful descriptors. The framework operates entirely in the original feature space, enabling transparent and interpretable model refinement. Experiments were conducted on four widely used emotional speech corpora (CREMA-D, RAVDESS, SAVEE, and TESS) under within-corpus evaluation settings. To assess the generalizability of the proposed framework, experiments were performed using multiple classifiers, including XGBoost, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF). Using the XGBoost classifier, the proposed framework achieved accuracies of 0.600 on CREMA-D, 0.752 on RAVDESS, 0.726 on SAVEE, and 0.998 on TESS, while reducing the feature space by up to 40-70%. Macro-F1 and UAR metrics exhibit similar trends, confirming stable performance gains. Additional experiments using SVM and RF further indicate that the proposed feature selection framework generalizes across different classifiers while maintaining competitive performance. The findings indicate that explainability can serve not only as a post-hoc interpretation tool but as an active optimization mechanism for compact and interpretable SER models.

Indexed as

Explainable AIHandcrafted acoustic featuresPermutation importanceSHAP-based interpretabilitySpeech emotion recognition

Identifiers

PMID42801031
PMCPMC13615201

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.