MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contactless Interaction System Based on Facial Expression Recognition for Humanoid Piano Robot

2022· article· en· W4317382999 on OpenAlexaff
Ling Zhong, Wen Wang, Shiqiang Zhu, Shanshan Ji, Changhai Zha, Minhong Wan, Jason Gu

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersZhejiang Province Public Welfare Technology Application Research Project
KeywordsHumanoid robotRobotHuman–computer interactionFacial expressionComputer scienceHuman–robot interactionSocial robotExpression (computer science)Service robotPerceptionArtificial intelligenceRobot controlMobile robotPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the wide application of service robots in people's daily life, people are not only satisfied with robots accomplishing tasks independently but also hope that robots can maintain sustainable interaction with human beings. Especially in the field of music, robots need to be equipped with intelligent cognitive skills in decision-making, so that the audience can enjoy immersive appreciation and emotional resonance in the robots performance. Visual perception and natural language understanding are essential for robots to establish human-robot friendly relationships. To enrich the interactive ability of music robots, we design a contactless interaction system based on facial expression recognition, which consists of four modules: voice wake-up, face detection, facial expression recognition, and music mapping. When people wake up the music robot with specific words, the robot will customize appropriate music to perform according to the recognition results of the FER module. As a final step, the interaction system has been successfully applied to the piano humanoid robot independently developed by our team.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO)Same topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207