MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bridging the Emotional Gap in AI: A Study on Speech Emotion Recognition for Adaptive Human Computer Interaction

2025· article· en· W4410295189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V S S L Deepak Janapa, Sri Karthikeya Manjunadha Machiraju, Bhargav Anjan Kalyan Yekula, Lakshmi Raghunadh Karri, Venkatesh Thanneru, M. B. Srinivas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Computer scienceEmotion recognitionSpeech recognitionHuman–computer interactionNatural language processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) is an advancement that has attracted a lot of interest because of its potential uses in intelligent systems, mental health monitoring, and human-computer interaction (HCI). Even with the progress made in AI-driven HCI, many systems are still unable to accurately sense and comprehend human emotions. Virtual assistants may carry out tasks based on spoken instructions, but they don't react well to user’s emotions, which results in less-than-ideal interactions. In order to close this gap, this study implements a speech emotion recognition algorithm that uses the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS), and Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS) datasets to examine voice characteristics. The system makes use of cutting-edge deep learning methods including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks to capture temporal relationships in speech patterns and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for feature extraction from spectrograms which results in building a Hybrid Model. Traditional machine learning models may not be able to capture subtle emotional nuances in complex data, but they do offer faster processing times and easier implementations. Conversely, deep learning models, including 2D architecture such as CNNs and LSTMs, need more processing power but are better at handling large datasets and detecting subtle emotional cues. By leveraging these advancements, this research aims to enhance virtual assistants and similar systems to better recognize and respond to emotional cues in real time. Thus, Opening the door for a technological environment that is more user-centered and sympathetic.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207