Recognition of Emotions in Speech Using Convolutional Neural Networks on Different Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models, specifically Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), were applied to extract emotions based on spectrograms and mel-spectrograms. This study uses spectrograms and mel-spectrograms to investigate which feature extraction method better represents emotions and how big the differences in efficiency are in this context. The conducted studies demonstrated that mel-spectrograms are a better-suited data type for training CNN-based speech emotion recognition (SER). The research experiments employed five popular datasets: Crowd-sourced Emotional Multimodal Actors Dataset (CREMA-D), Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS), Surrey Audio-Visual Expressed Emotion (SAVEE), Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS), and The Interactive Emotional Dyadic Motion Capture (IEMOCAP). Six different classes of emotions were used: happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust, and neutral. However, some experiments were prepared to recognize just four emotions due to the characteristics of the IEMOCAP dataset. A comparison of classification efficiency on different datasets and an attempt to develop a universal model trained using all datasets were also performed. This approach brought an accuracy of 55.89% when recognizing four emotions. The most accurate model for six emotion recognition was trained and achieved 57.42% accuracy on a combination of four datasets (CREMA-D, RAVDESS, SAVEE, TESS). What is more, another study was developed that demonstrated that improper data division for training and test sets significantly influences the test accuracy of CNNs. Therefore, the problem of inappropriate data division between the training and test sets, which affected the results of studies known from the literature, was addressed extensively. The performed experiments employed the popular ResNet18 architecture to demonstrate the reliability of the research results and to show that these problems are not unique to the custom CNN architecture proposed in experiments. Subsequently, the label correctness of the CREMA-D dataset was studied through the employment of a prepared questionnaire.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".