Multi-clue fusion for emotion recognition in the wild
Abstract
In the past three years, Emotion Recognition in the Wild (EmotiW) Grand Challenge has drawn more and more attention due to its huge potential applications. In the fourth challenge, aimed at the task of video based emotion recognition, we propose a multi-clue emotion fusion (MCEF) framework by modeling human emotion from three mutually complementary sources, facial appearance texture, facial action, and audio. To extract high-level emotion features from sequential face images, we employ a CNN-RNN architecture, where face image from each frame is first fed into the fine-tuned VGG-Face network to extract face feature, and then the features of all frames are sequentially traversed in a bidirectional RNN so as to capture dynamic changes of facial textures. To attain more accurate facial actions, a facial landmark trajectory model is proposed to explicitly learn emotion variations of facial components. Further, audio signals are also modeled in a CNN framework by extracting low-level energy features from segmented audio clips and then stacking them as an image-like map. Finally, we fuse the results generated from three clues to boost the performance of emotion recognition. Our proposed MCEF achieves an overall accuracy of 56.66% with a large improvement of 16.19% with respect to the baseline.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
While handcrafted features are typically outperformed by DNN-learned features in direct comparison, some challenge-winning models rely on hybrid architectures that take advantage of complementarities between the two.
“While they are typically outperformed by DNN-learned features in direct comparison, some challenge-winning models rely on hybrid architectures that can take advantage of complementarities between the two [152], [18].”
From Deep learning for human affect recognition: Insights and new developments (2021) · cites this paper as [152]
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
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155 · see citing works
Lucey, P., Cohn, J. F., Kanade, T., Saragih, J., Ambadar, Z., & Matthews, I. (2010) · 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Workshops · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2010.5543262 · Cited by 4,303 · see citing works
Recognizing action units for facial expression analysis
Tian, Y.-I., Kanade, T., & Cohn, J. F. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.908962 · Cited by 1,745 · see citing works
Joint Fine-Tuning in Deep Neural Networks for Facial Expression Recognition
Jung, H., Lee, S., Yim, J., Park, S., & Kim, J. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.341 · Cited by 781 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Following the setting in [11], we exclude the 17 points on the contour of the face, and adopt the 51 points located on the different facial parts, such as nose, eyes, eyebrows and mouth.”
BackgroundMethod
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep learning for human affect recognition: Insights and new developments
Rouast, P. V., Adam, M. T. P., & Chiong, R. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2018.2890471 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
From individual to group-level emotion recognition: EmotiW 5.0
Dhall, A., Goecke, R., Ghosh, S., Joshi, J., Hoey, J., & Gedeon, T. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/3136755.3143004 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yan, J., Zheng, W., Cui, Z., Tang, C., Zhang, T., Zong, Y., & Sun, N.
- Affiliations
- Southeast University (CN)
- Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-10-31
- Pages
- 458-463
- OpenAlex
- W2548264631
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 10.41
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Basic Research Program of China (2015CB351704)
- Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20130020)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61231002)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
- Keywords
- video-based emotion recognition, facial action units, audio features, CNN-RNN, VGG-Face
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