A Survey on Physiological Signal-Based Emotion Recognition
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
Physiological signals are the most reliable form of signals for emotion recognition, as they cannot be controlled deliberately by the subject. Existing review papers on emotion recognition based on physiological signals surveyed only the regular steps involved in the workflow of emotion recognition such as pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification. While these are important steps, such steps are required for any signal processing application. Emotion recognition poses its own set of challenges that are very important to address for a robust system. Thus, to bridge the gap in the existing literature, in this paper, we review the effect of inter-subject data variance on emotion recognition, important data annotation techniques for emotion recognition and their comparison, data pre-processing techniques for each physiological signal, data splitting techniques for improving the generalization of emotion recognition models and different multimodal fusion techniques and their comparison. Finally, we discuss key challenges and future directions in this field.
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) | 0.005 | 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