Leveraging the Sensitivity of Plants with Deep Learning to Recognize Human Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence combined with behavioral sciences have led to the development of cutting-edge tools for recognizing human emotions based on text, video, audio, and physiological data. However, these data sources are expensive, intrusive, and regulated, unlike plants, which have been shown to be sensitive to human steps and sounds. A methodology to use plants as human emotion detectors is proposed. Electrical signals from plants were tracked and labeled based on video data. The labeled data were then used for classification., and the MLP, biLSTM, MFCC-CNN, MFCC-ResNet, Random Forest, 1-Dimensional CNN, and biLSTM (without windowing) models were set using a grid search algorithm with cross-validation. Finally, the best-parameterized models were trained and used on the test set for classification. The performance of this methodology was measured via a case study with 54 participants who were watching an emotionally charged video; as ground truth, their facial emotions were simultaneously measured using facial emotion analysis. The Random Forest model shows the best performance, particularly in recognizing high-arousal emotions, achieving an overall weighted accuracy of 55.2% and demonstrating high weighted recall in emotions such as fear (61.0%) and happiness (60.4%). The MFCC-ResNet model offers decently balanced results, with AccuracyMFCC-ResNet=0.318 and RecallMFCC-ResNet=0.324. Regarding the MFCC-ResNet model, fear and anger were recognized with 75% and 50% recall, respectively. Thus, using plants as an emotion recognition tool seems worth investigating, addressing both cost and privacy concerns.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".