MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206396078 · doi:10.3390/s22010403

Motion Capture Sensor-Based Emotion Recognition Using a Bi-Modular Sequential Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4206396078 on OpenAlexaff
Yajurv Bhatia, A. S. M. Hossain Bari, Gee-Sern Hsu, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGaitModular designDeep learningMachine learningRoboticsInferenceMotion captureOverfittingArtificial neural networkDomain (mathematical analysis)Motion (physics)Computer visionRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion capture sensor-based gait emotion recognition is an emerging sub-domain of human emotion recognition. Its applications span a variety of fields including smart home design, border security, robotics, virtual reality, and gaming. In recent years, several deep learning-based approaches have been successful in solving the Gait Emotion Recognition (GER) problem. However, a vast majority of such methods rely on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) with a significant number of model parameters, which lead to model overfitting as well as increased inference time. This paper contributes to the domain of knowledge by proposing a new lightweight bi-modular architecture with handcrafted features that is trained using a RMSprop optimizer and stratified data shuffling. The method is highly effective in correctly inferring human emotions from gait, achieving a micro-mean average precision of 0.97 on the Edinburgh Locomotive Mocap Dataset. It outperforms all recent deep-learning methods, while having the lowest inference time of 16.3 milliseconds per gait sample. This research study is beneficial to applications spanning various fields, such as emotionally aware assistive robotics, adaptive therapy and rehabilitation, and surveillance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207