Cited by 938Emotion and Mood RecognitionSpeech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and Audio Processing

The INTERSPEECH 2009 emotion challenge

Schuller, Björn, Steidl, Stefan, Batliner, Anton·2009·Interspeech 2009

Abstract

The last decade has seen a substantial body of literature on the recognition of emotion from speech. However, in comparison to related speech processing tasks such as Automatic Speech and Speaker Recognition, practically no standardised corpora and test-conditions exist to compare performances under exactly the same conditions. Instead a multiplicity of evaluation strategies employed – such as cross-validation or percentage splits without proper instance definition – prevents exact reproducibility. Further, in order to face more realistic scenarios, the community is in desperate need of more spontaneous and less prototypical data. This INTERSPEECH 2009 Emotion Challenge aims at bridging such gaps between excellent research on human emotion recognition from speech and low compatibility of results. The FAU Aibo Emotion Corpus [1] serves as basis with clearly defined test and training partitions incorporating speaker independence and different room acoustics as needed in most reallife settings. This paper introduces the challenge, the corpus, the features, and benchmark results of two popular approaches towards emotion recognition from speech. Index Terms: emotion, challenge, feature types, classification 1.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21437/interspeech.2009-103

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The feature set slightly exceeded the organizers' baseline on the FAU Aibo Emotion Corpus for a five-class problem.

    “On the FAU Aibo Emotion Corpus [30], as part of the INTERSPEECH Emotion Challenge 2009 [25], we were able to slightly exceed the baseline given by the organizers for a five class problem (anger, emphatic, neutral, positive, and rest) [32].”
  • The number of features per utterance varies from several hundred to several thousand, depending on the employed LLDs and HSFs.

    “This number varies from several hundred [157] to several thousand [158], [123], depending on the employed LLDs and HSFs.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuller, B., Steidl, S., & Batliner, A.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • MorphoSys (Germany) (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Venue
Interspeech 2009
Publisher
ISCA
Published
2009-09-06
Pages
312-315
ISSN
2308-457X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1501669607
Cited by
938
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 40
FWCI
87.42
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Interspeech (USB) (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 211486)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
emotion recognition from speech, benchmarking, spontaneous speech, room acoustics, speaker independence, feature types, emotion classification

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