MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402464104 · doi:10.11159/icbes24.132

Analyzing the Relationship between the Autonomic Nervous System and Emotions Using High Temporal Resolution Capacitive Electrocardiography, Facial Expressions, and Respiration Data

2024· article· en· W4402464104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. M. Li, Satoshi Ishihara, Reiji Hattori, Satoshi Matsunuma

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomic nervous systemElectrocardiographyComputer scienceCapacitive sensingArtificial intelligenceHeart rate variabilityCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the domain of emotional assessment, the predominant focus of numerous studies lies in elucidating the correlation between physiological indicators derived from electrocardiograms and facial expressions.However, there remains a scarcity of studies analyzing the correlation between autonomic nervous system indicators computed from electrocardiograms and emotions with high temporal resolution.In this study, we concurrently measured participants' facial images, capacitive electrocardiogram (cECG), and respiratory data.The cECG and respiratory data were sampled at 250 samples per second (sps), while facial images were captured at 5 frames per second (fps).By focus on respiration, our objective is to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the impact of emotions on the autonomic nervous system and the temporal sequence of responses.We devised a system to visually represent how elicited emotions are manifested in facial expressions, cECG, and respiratory data, with the aim of elucidating the intricate relationship among the autonomic nervous system, emotions, and breathing.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and ScienceSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207