MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387682135 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3323290

Multilevel Stress Assessment From ECG in a Virtual Reality Environment Using Multimodal Fusion

2023· article· en· W4387682135 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeeshan Ahmad, Suha Rabbani, Muhammad Rehman Zafar, Syem Ishaque, Sridhar Krishnan, Naimul Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceStress (linguistics)Benchmark (surveying)Virtual realityHeart rate variabilityArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningHuman–computer interactionHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is an attractive option to assess stress in serious virtual reality (VR) applications due to its noninvasive nature. However, the existing machine learning (ML) models perform poorly. Moreover, existing studies only perform a binary stress assessment, while to develop a more engaging biofeedback-based application, multilevel assessment is necessary. Existing studies annotate and classify a single experience (e.g., watching a VR video) to a single stress level, which again prevents design of dynamic experiences where real-time in-game stress assessment can be utilized. In this article, we report our findings on a new study on VR stress assessment, where three stress levels are assessed. ECG data were collected from nine users experiencing a VR roller coaster. The VR experience was then manually labeled in 10-s segments to three stress levels by three raters. We then propose a novel multimodal deep fusion model utilizing spectrogram and 1-D ECG that can provide a stress prediction from just a 1-s window. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed model outperforms the classical heart-rate variability (HRV)-based ML models (9% increase in accuracy) and baseline deep learning models (2.5% increase in accuracy). We also report results on the benchmark WESAD dataset to show the supremacy of the model.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207