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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |