Using Temporal Features of Observers’ Physiological Measures to Distinguish Between Genuine and Fake Smiles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future affective computing research could be enhanced by enabling the computer to recognise a displayer's mental state from an observer's reaction (measured by physiological signals), using this information to improve recognition algorithms, and eventually to computer systems which are more responsive to human emotions. In this paper, an observer's physiological signals are analysed to distinguish displayers' genuine from fake smiles. Overall, thirty smile videos were collected from four benchmark database and classified as showing genuine or fake smiles. Overall, forty observers viewed videos. We generally recorded four physiological signals: pupillary response (PR), electrocardiogram (ECG), galvanic skin response (GSR), and blood volume pulse (BVP). A number of temporal features were extracted after a few processing steps, and minimally correlated features between genuine and fake smiles were selected using the NCCA (canonical correlation analysis with neural network) system. Finally, classification accuracy was found to be as high as 98.8 percent from PR features using a leave-one-observer-out process. In comparison, the best current image processing technique [1] on the same video data was 95 percent correct. Observers were 59 percent (on average) to 90 percent (by voting) correct by their conscious choices. Our results demonstrate that humans can non-consciously (or emotionally) recognise the quality of smiles 4 percent better than current image processing techniques and 9 percent better than the conscious choices of groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it