Cited by 23Emotion and Mood RecognitionSpeech and Audio ProcessingSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Asynchronous and Event-Based Fusion Systems for Affect Recognition on Naturalistic Data in Comparison to Conventional Approaches

Open access
Lingenfelser, Florian, Wagner, Johannes, Deng, Jun, Brueckner, Raymond, Schuller, Bjorn, Andre, Elisabeth·2018·IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing

Abstract

Throughout many present studies dealing with multi-modal fusion, decisions are synchronously forced for fixed time segments across all modalities. Varying success is reported, sometimes performance is worse than unimodal classification. Our goal is the synergistic exploitation of multimodality whilst implementing a real-time system for affect recognition in a naturalistic setting. Therefore we present a categorization of possible fusion strategies for affect recognition on continuous time frames of complete recording sessions and we evaluate multiple implementations from resulting categories. These involve conventional fusion strategies as well as novel approaches that incorporate the asynchronous nature of observed modalities. Some of the latter algorithms consider temporal alignments between modalities and observed frames by applying asynchronous neural networks that use memory blocks to model temporal dependencies. Others use an indirect approach that introduces events as an intermediate layer to accumulate evidence for the target class through all modalities. Recognition results gained on a naturalistic conversational corpus show a drop in recognition accuracy when moving from unimodal classification to synchronous multimodal fusion. However, with our proposed asynchronous and event-based fusion techniques we are able to raise the recognition system's accuracy by 7.83 percent compared to video analysis and 13.71 percent in comparison to common fusion strategies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/taffc.2016.2635124

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lingenfelser, F., Wagner, J., Deng, J., Brueckner, R., Schuller, B., & Andre, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing
Published
2018-10-01
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
410-423
ISSN
  • 1949-3045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2371-9850
OpenAlex
W2557887185
Cited by
23
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ARIA-VALUSPA (645378)
  • KRISTINA (645012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
affect recognition, multimodal fusion, temporal alignment, asynchronous neural networks, memory blocks, conversational corpus, real-time emotion recognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review