A performance comparison of eight commercially available automatic classifiers for facial affect recognition
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 15, Issue: 4, Page: e0231968
2020
- 118Citations
- 142Captures
- 3Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations118
- Citation Indexes114
- 114
- CrossRef100
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures142
- Readers142
- 142
- Mentions3
- News Mentions3
- News3
Most Recent News
Human super-recognizers see faces better than AI
Randal Reid was arrested by Georgia police on Thanksgiving last year as he was headed to a celebration with his mother. Reid, who is Black,
Article Description
In the wake of rapid advances in automatic affect analysis, commercial automatic classifiers for facial affect recognition have attracted considerable attention in recent years. While several options now exist to analyze dynamic video data, less is known about the relative performance of these classifiers, in particular when facial expressions are spontaneous rather than posed. In the present work, we tested eight out-of-the-box automatic classifiers, and compared their emotion recognition performance to that of human observers. A total of 937 videos were sampled from two large databases that conveyed the basic six emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust) either in posed (BU-4DFE) or spontaneous (UT-Dallas) form. Results revealed a recognition advantage for human observers over automatic classification. Among the eight classifiers, there was considerable variance in recognition accuracy ranging from 48% to 62%. Subsequent analyses per type of expression revealed that performance by the two best performing classifiers approximated those of human observers, suggesting high agreement for posed expressions. However, classification accuracy was consistently lower (although above chance level) for spontaneous affective behavior. The findings indicate potential shortcomings of existing out-of-the-box classifiers for measuring emotions, and highlight the need for more spontaneous facial databases that can act as a benchmark in the training and testing of automatic emotion recognition systems. We further discuss some limitations of analyzing facial expressions that have been recorded in controlled environments.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083757425&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32330178; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231968.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231968; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231968; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231968&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know