Cargando…

A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech

Vocal emotion recognition (VER) in natural speech, often referred to as speech emotion recognition (SER), remains challenging for both humans and computers. Applied fields including clinical diagnosis and intervention, social interaction research or Human Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly bene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doğdu, Cem, Kessler, Thomas, Schneider, Dana, Shadaydeh, Maha, Schweinberger, Stefan R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9571288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36236658
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22197561
_version_ 1784810327422009344
author Doğdu, Cem
Kessler, Thomas
Schneider, Dana
Shadaydeh, Maha
Schweinberger, Stefan R.
author_facet Doğdu, Cem
Kessler, Thomas
Schneider, Dana
Shadaydeh, Maha
Schweinberger, Stefan R.
author_sort Doğdu, Cem
collection PubMed
description Vocal emotion recognition (VER) in natural speech, often referred to as speech emotion recognition (SER), remains challenging for both humans and computers. Applied fields including clinical diagnosis and intervention, social interaction research or Human Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly benefit from efficient VER algorithms. Several feature sets were used with machine-learning (ML) algorithms for discrete emotion classification. However, there is no consensus for which low-level-descriptors and classifiers are optimal. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of machine-learning algorithms with several different feature sets. Concretely, seven ML algorithms were compared on the Berlin Database of Emotional Speech: Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP), J48 Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine with Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), Random Forest (RF), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Simple Logistic Regression (LOG) and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) with 10-fold cross validation using four openSMILE feature sets (i.e., IS-09, emobase, GeMAPS and eGeMAPS). Results indicated that SMO, MLP and LOG show better performance (reaching to 87.85%, 84.00% and 83.74% accuracies, respectively) compared to RF, DT, MLR and KNN (with minimum 73.46%, 53.08%, 70.65% and 58.69% accuracies, respectively). Overall, the emobase feature set performed best. We discuss the implications of these findings for applications in diagnosis, intervention or HCI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9571288
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95712882022-10-17 A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech Doğdu, Cem Kessler, Thomas Schneider, Dana Shadaydeh, Maha Schweinberger, Stefan R. Sensors (Basel) Article Vocal emotion recognition (VER) in natural speech, often referred to as speech emotion recognition (SER), remains challenging for both humans and computers. Applied fields including clinical diagnosis and intervention, social interaction research or Human Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly benefit from efficient VER algorithms. Several feature sets were used with machine-learning (ML) algorithms for discrete emotion classification. However, there is no consensus for which low-level-descriptors and classifiers are optimal. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of machine-learning algorithms with several different feature sets. Concretely, seven ML algorithms were compared on the Berlin Database of Emotional Speech: Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP), J48 Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine with Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), Random Forest (RF), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Simple Logistic Regression (LOG) and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) with 10-fold cross validation using four openSMILE feature sets (i.e., IS-09, emobase, GeMAPS and eGeMAPS). Results indicated that SMO, MLP and LOG show better performance (reaching to 87.85%, 84.00% and 83.74% accuracies, respectively) compared to RF, DT, MLR and KNN (with minimum 73.46%, 53.08%, 70.65% and 58.69% accuracies, respectively). Overall, the emobase feature set performed best. We discuss the implications of these findings for applications in diagnosis, intervention or HCI. MDPI 2022-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9571288/ /pubmed/36236658 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22197561 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Doğdu, Cem
Kessler, Thomas
Schneider, Dana
Shadaydeh, Maha
Schweinberger, Stefan R.
A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title_full A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title_fullStr A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title_short A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Feature Sets for Automatic Vocal Emotion Recognition in Speech
title_sort comparison of machine learning algorithms and feature sets for automatic vocal emotion recognition in speech
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9571288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36236658
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22197561
work_keys_str_mv AT dogducem acomparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT kesslerthomas acomparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT schneiderdana acomparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT shadaydehmaha acomparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT schweinbergerstefanr acomparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT dogducem comparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT kesslerthomas comparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT schneiderdana comparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT shadaydehmaha comparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech
AT schweinbergerstefanr comparisonofmachinelearningalgorithmsandfeaturesetsforautomaticvocalemotionrecognitioninspeech