Cited by 42Speech and Audio ProcessingHuman Motion and AnimationFace recognition and analysis

Modality Dropout for Improved Performance-driven Talking Faces

Open access
Hussen Abdelaziz, Ahmed, Theobald, Barry-John, Dixon, Paul, Knothe, Reinhard, Apostoloff, Nicholas, Kajareker, Sachin·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Abstract

We describe our novel deep learning approach for driving animated faces using both acoustic and visual information. In particular, speech-related facial movements are generated using audiovisual information, and non-verbal facial movements are generated using only visual information. To ensure that our model exploits both modalities during training, batches are generated that contain audio-only, video-only, and audiovisual input features. The probability of dropping a modality allows control over the degree to which the model exploits audio and visual information during training. Our trained model runs in real-time on resource limited hardware (e.g. a smart phone), it is user agnostic, and it is not dependent on a potentially error-prone transcription of the speech. We use subjective testing to demonstrate: 1) the improvement of audiovisual-driven animation over the equivalent video-only approach, and 2) the improvement in the animation of speech-related facial movements after introducing modality dropout. Without modality dropout, viewers prefer audiovisual-driven animation in 51% of the test sequences compared with only 18% for video-driven. After introducing dropout viewer preference for audiovisual-driven animation increases to 74%, but decreases to 8% for video-only.

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 · 10.1145/3382507.3418840

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Current methods for robust multimodal learning require retraining the whole model with a specialized training strategy or utilize an extra module/sub-network to guide the multimodal model.

    “The current methods for robust MML, as discussed in Section 2, require retraining the whole model with specialized training strategy [20, 18] or utilize extra module/sub-network to guide the multi-modal model [22, 21].”
  • The resulting adaptation offers significant savings compared to training a separate model for each input combination or retraining the model using a specialized training strategy.

    “The resulting adaptation offers significant savings compared to training a separate model for each input combination or retraining the model using some specialized training strategy like modality dropout [18, 17] or knowledge distillation [20, 22].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [16]16. J. Chung, A. Senior, O. Vinyals, and A. Zisserman. Lip reading sentences in the wild. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3444-3453, 2016.
  2. [48]48. S. Taylor, M. Mahler, B. Theobald, and I. Matthews. Dynamic units of visual speech. In Symposium on Computer Animation, pages 275-284, 2012.
  3. [49]49. J. Thies, M. Elgharib, A. Tewari, C. Theobalt, and M. Niessner. Neural voice puppetry: Audio- driven facial reenactment. arXiv 2019, 2019.
  4. [50]50. J. Thies, M. Zollhoefer, M. Stamminger, C. Theobalt, and M. Niessner. Face2Face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of RGB videos. Communications of the ACM, 62(1):96-104, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hussen Abdelaziz, A., Theobald, B.-J., Dixon, P., Knothe, R., Apostoloff, N., & Kajareker, S.
Affiliations
  • Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA
  • Apple (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-10-21
Pages
378-386
OpenAlex
W3029296930
Cited by
42
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Human Motion and Animation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
modality dropout, user preferences

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