MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414580812 · doi:10.2339/politeknik.1729678

Deep Learning-Based Speech Emotion Recognition for IoT Edge Devices: A Comparative Study

2025· article· en· W4414580812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Buket İşler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Polytechnic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial neural networkWorkflowCloud computingDependency (UML)Emotion recognitionDeep learningEdge computingFeature extractionEmotion classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in pattern recognition, significant progress has been made in recognising human emotions from speech characteristics, facial activity, and physiological responses. However, the expansion of Internet of Things (IoT)-based infrastructures has increased pressure on conventional cloud systems due to the high volume of transmitted data and the need for real-time responsiveness. As a remedy, edge computing has emerged as a distributed alternative, enabling localised data processing and reducing dependency on remote servers. In this context, the present study evaluates the classification performance of three hybrid deep learning (DL) models—Convolutional Neural Network–Dense Neural Network (CNN-Dense), Long Short-Term Memory–Convolutional Neural Network (LSTM-CNN), and Dense–Long Short-Term Memory (Dense-LSTM) —within a simulated edge-based environment. The Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS) dataset was employed, and experimental workflows were implemented via Amazon Web Services (AWS) to simulate edge resource limitations. Accuracy was assessed using macro-averaged metrics, including precision, recall, and F1-score. Among the models, CNN-Dense showed the highest performance, achieving an F1-score of 96%, followed by LSTM-CNN (95%) and Dense-LSTM (93%). The findings suggest that CNN–Dense may offer feature extraction advantages, and that hybrid models could be promising for emotion classification in decentralised systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PolytechnicSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207