↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of physiological signals for recognition of boredom, pain, and surprise emotions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiological Anthropology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of physiological signals for recognition of boredom, pain, and surprise emotions
Published in
Journal of Physiological Anthropology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40101-015-0063-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eun-Hye Jang, Byoung-Jun Park, Mi-Sook Park, Sang-Hyeob Kim, Jin-Hun Sohn

Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine the differences of boredom, pain, and surprise. In addition to that, it was conducted to propose approaches for emotion recognition based on physiological signals. Three emotions, boredom, pain, and surprise, are induced through the presentation of emotional stimuli and electrocardiography (ECG), electrodermal activity (EDA), skin temperature (SKT), and photoplethysmography (PPG) as physiological signals are measured to collect a dataset from 217 participants when experiencing the emotions. Twenty-seven physiological features are extracted from the signals to classify the three emotions. The discriminant function analysis (DFA) as a statistical method, and five machine learning algorithms (linear discriminant analysis (LDA), classification and regression trees (CART), self-organizing map (SOM), Naïve Bayes algorithm, and support vector machine (SVM)) are used for classifying the emotions. The result shows that the difference of physiological responses among emotions is significant in heart rate (HR), skin conductance level (SCL), skin conductance response (SCR), mean skin temperature (meanSKT), blood volume pulse (BVP), and pulse transit time (PTT), and the highest recognition accuracy of 84.7 % is obtained by using DFA. This study demonstrates the differences of boredom, pain, and surprise and the best emotion recognizer for the classification of the three emotions by using physiological signals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 260 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 18%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Researcher 13 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 64 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 48 18%
Computer Science 38 14%
Psychology 36 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 75 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiological Anthropology
#327
of 451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,948
of 278,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiological Anthropology
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.