MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speech Emotion Recognition Using Deep Learning

2024· article· en· W4399729179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed A. Gismelbari, Ilya I. Vixnin, Gregory M. Kovalev, Eugene E. Gogolev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionEmotion recognitionDeep learningArtificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the application of deep learning techniques in recognizing emotional states from spoken language. Specifically, we employ Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and the HuBERT model to analyze the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS). Our findings suggest that deep learning models, particularly the HuBERT model, exhibit significant potential in accurately identifying speech emotions. The models were trained and tested on a dataset containing various emotional expressions, including happiness, sadness, anger, and fear, among others. The experimentation involved preprocessing the audio data, feature extraction using Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs), and implementing deep learning architectures for emotion classification. The HuBERT model, with its advanced self-supervised learning mechanism, outperformed traditional CNNs in terms of accuracy and efficiency. This research highlights the importance of selecting appropriate deep learning models and feature sets for the task of speech emotion recognition. Our analysis demonstrates that the HuBERT model, by leveraging contextual information and temporal dynamics in speech, offers a promising approach for developing more sensitive and accurate SER systems. These systems have potential applications in various fields, including mental health assessment, interactive voice response systems, and educational software, by enabling machines to understand and respond to human emotions more effectively. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing discussion in the field of artificial intelligence about the best practices for implementing deep learning techniques in speech processing tasks.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207