Automatic emotion recognition in the wild using an ensemble of static and dynamic representations
Abstract
Automatic emotion recognition in the wild video datasets is a very challenging problem because of the inter-class similarities among different facial expressions and large intra-class variabilities due to the significant changes in illumination, pose, scene, and expression. In this paper, we present our proposed method for video-based emotion recognition in the EmotiW 2016 challenge. The task considers the unconstrained emotion recognition problem by training from short video clips extracted from movies and testing on short movie clips and spontaneous video clips of the reality TV data. Four different methods are employed to extract both static and dynamic emotion representations from the videos. First, local binary patterns of three orthogonal planes are used to describe spatiotemporal features of the video frames. Second, principal component analysis is applied to the image patches in a two-stage convolutional network to learn weights and extract facial features from the aligned faces. Third, the deep convolutional neural network model of VGG-Face is deployed to extract deep facial representations from aligned faces. Fourth, a bag of visual words is computed based on dense scale-invariant feature transform descriptors from aligned face images to form hand-crafted representations. Support vector machines are then utilized to train and classify the obtained spatiotemporal representations and facial features. Finally, score-level fusion is applied to combine the classification results and predict the emotion labels of the video clips. The results show that the proposed combined method has outperformed all the utilized techniques with the overall validations and test accuracies of 43.13% and 40.13%, respectively. This system, is relatively a good classifier in Happy and Angry emotion categories and is unsuccessful in detecting Surprise, Disgust, and Fear.
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?
Appearance features can be extended for spatio-temporal representation by considering a third orthogonal plane.
“Appearance features can be extended for spatio-temporal representation by considering a third orthogonal plane [96], [99].”
From Deep learning for human affect recognition: Insights and new developments (2021) · cites this paper as [96]
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
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589 · see citing works
Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection
Dalal, N., & Triggs, B. (2005) · 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2005.177 · Cited by 33,584 · see citing works
FERA 2015 - second Facial Expression Recognition and Analysis challenge
Valstar, M. F., Almaev, T., Girard, J. M., McKeown, G., Mehu, M., Yin, L., Pantic, M., & Cohn, J. F. (2015) · 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG) · doi:10.1109/fg.2015.7284874 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
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
- Authors
- Ghazi, M. M., & Ekenel, H. K.
- Affiliations
- Sabancı Üniversitesi (TR)
- Istanbul Technical University (TR)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-10-31
- Pages
- 514-521
- OpenAlex
- W2547263832
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
- Istanbul Technical University Academic Open Archive (Istanbul Technical University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- TUBITAK (113E067)
- Marie Curie 7th EU Framework Programme (MMFP)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Keywords
- automatic emotion recognition, video-based emotion recognition, facial expression recognition, local binary pattern, spatio-temporal features, facial feature extraction, VGG-Face, bag of visual words, SIFT descriptors, score-level fusion, ensemble learning
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