Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

AffectEval: A Modular and Customizable Framework for Affective Computing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AffectEval claims to cut affective-computing pipeline code by up to 90% while matching or beating prior accuracy.

desk verdict AffectEval is a genuinely useful modular framework, but the paper's central 'same or better' claim is contradicted by its own Table 2, so the validation needs a major fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21184 v1 pith:YNW2VLRM submitted 2025-04-29 cs.AI

Emily Zhou , Khushboo Khatri , Yixue Zhao , Bhaskar Krishnamachari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords affectivecomputingsoftwareframeworkpipelinephysiologicalsignalsemotionrecognitionstressdetectionreproducibilitymodulararchitecture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AffectEval is a proposed take on a recurring problem in affective computing: building emotion- and stress-recognition pipelines from scratch for each new dataset or application, which wastes effort and makes results hard to compare. The paper claims that a modular framework with six pipeline components—signal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, feature selection, label generation, and classification—can cover the full range of multimodal physiological affect-recognition tasks with pre-implemented defaults that users can override. To support this, the authors reimplemented two published studies on the WESAD and Anxiety Phases datasets and report that their pipelines matched or exceeded the original accuracy, AUC, and F1 scores while cutting raw lines of code by up to 90 percent. If the claim holds, researchers could assemble end-to-end affective computing pipelines in far less time and reuse the same components across domains such as stress, general affect, and clinical applications.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the component-and-pipeline architecture. Six classes—Signal Acquisition, Signal Preprocessor, Feature Extractor, Feature Selector, Label Generator, and Classification—each inherit from an abstract base class, ship with default behaviors built on standard signal-processing and machine-learning libraries, and allow method-level overrides. Users instantiate the components they need, wire them into an ordered list whose input and output types are compatible, and hand the list to a Pipeline that executes them in sequence. This ordering plus the standardized dataset layout is what makes the framework reusable across signals and domains; the same pipeline structure is reused for the two replicated studies with only the component parameters changed.

What would settle it

Re-run both replicated studies from their original released code on the same raw WESAD and APD files, using identical preprocessing, features, labels, train/test splits, and random seeds, then run the AffectEval pipelines alongside; the central claim fails if AffectEval's metrics are not at least comparable or if the line-count reduction disappears when custom label-generation and preprocessing code is included.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single modular framework can serve as a general substrate for affective computing research. AffectEval organizes the standard pipeline into independent components, each with a default implementation and an interface that lets users substitute custom methods, then chains them in an ordered list executed by a Pipeline object. The paper adds feature selection and label generation as first-class components beyond the usual acquisition-preprocessing-feature-extraction-classification stages, and it introduces a fixed folder-and-CSV dataset format to cut setup work. As evidence, it reproduces the affect-classification experiments of two prior studies on two multimodal datasets and reports performance that is the same or better across all experiments, with effort reductions of 90% and 89% measured in raw lines of code.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands on the premise that AffectEval's reproduction pipelines genuinely match the original studies' preprocessing, feature extraction, labels, and evaluation protocols; if those details drift, the reported accuracy comparison is not controlled and the effort reduction is measured against an unverified baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher working on a new stress- or emotion-detection dataset can start from AffectEval's defaults and only customize the parts that differ, instead of writing a full pipeline by hand.
  • Because components are swappable, the same framework provides a controlled setting for comparing preprocessing methods, feature extractors, feature selectors, and classifiers on identical data and labels.
  • The standard dataset format lowers the barrier to reproducing published experiments, since acquisition and label-generation scaffolding no longer need to be recreated for each paper.
  • If the replication results hold, the framework offers a single codebase that spans multiple domains—general affect, stress, and potentially depression detection—without sacrificing classification performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 90% figure counts only preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification code; data formatting and label generation are excluded because they are needed regardless. For a new project, those excluded steps may dominate, so the realized effort saving could be smaller than 90%.
  • A fairer test of the framework's promise would measure the time a new user needs to go from raw data to working pipeline on a dataset the authors did not touch; the paper does not provide this measure.
  • Because the framework's components are defined by input/output compatibility, the same architecture should extend naturally to audio, text, or video signals; adding default methods for those modalities would be a concrete test of the design rather than a rewrite.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AffectEval, a modular, object-oriented framework for building affective computing pipelines from physiological signals. The framework provides six components (signal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, feature selection, label generation, and classification) with default behaviors that users can override, and it establishes a standardized dataset folder format. The authors validate AffectEval by replicating two prior studies: Schmidt et al. (2018) on the WESAD dataset (three-class and binary affect classification) and Zhou et al. (2023) on the APD and WESAD datasets (binary stress detection). They report that their pipelines achieve the same or better accuracy, AUC, and F1-scores across all experiments, and they claim up to a 90% reduction in programming effort measured by raw lines of code. The paper also compares AffectEval with prior frameworks (metaFERA, AffectToolbox) and discusses limitations such as lack of real-time and distributed support.

Significance. AffectEval is a potentially useful open-source contribution: it is the first framework, to the authors' knowledge, that covers all pipeline components including feature selection and label generation, and it explicitly supports multimodal physiological signals across multiple application domains. The reuse of pipeline structure across two different studies demonstrates a concrete engineering benefit, and the line-of-code reduction, if properly verified, would be a meaningful usability improvement. The validation approach is also commendable in principle: reproducing external benchmarks (Schmidt et al.) gives independent grounding. However, the paper's central empirical claim—'same or better across all experiments'—is contradicted by its own Table 2, and the replication is not controlled due to acknowledged differences in preprocessing, feature extraction libraries, and unspecified model parameters. The line-of-code metric is unverifiable because the baseline code is not public. These issues undermine the paper's stated contributions in its current form, although they are addressable through revised claims and additional disclosure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 2] The claim that 'Our pipelines achieved the same or better accuracies, AUC scores, and F1-scores across all experiments' is false as stated. Table 2 reports several AffectEval results that are substantially worse than the original: WESAD SVM accuracy is 57.16 ± 1.25 vs. 86.0; WESAD ensemble accuracy is 86.29 vs. 99.0; Schmidt et al. three-class AB accuracy is 77.60 ± 4.10 vs. 80.34; LDA accuracy is 69.83 ± 2.61 vs. 79.35. Since the sentence makes a universal claim, even a single counterexample invalidates it. The abstract and conclusion repeat the 'same or higher' phrasing, so this is not a local omission but a load-bearing misstatement that must be corrected and replaced with an accurate summary of the comparison.
  2. [Section 4.3] The validation is not a controlled replication. The text first says the authors used 'the same preprocessing methods, physiological features, labels, and classification models outlined by the authors,' but later attributes discrepancies to 'preprocessing and feature extraction methods from different libraries' and 'model parameters that were not specified in previous work.' These two statements are inconsistent: if the pipelines differ in preprocessing, feature extraction, or model configuration, then the accuracy comparison does not isolate the effect of the framework. The authors should either align their implementation exactly with the original protocols (to the extent possible), or explicitly reframe the results as 'an AffectEval-based reimplementation' rather than a replication, and analyze which methodological differences explain the large performance gaps (e.g., WESAD SVM dropping from 86.0 to 57.16).
  3. [Section 4.4] The 90%/89% reduction in lines of code is not verifiable from the information provided. The original code for Schmidt et al. and Zhou et al. is not public, so the comparison baseline is an estimate made by the authors. The metric 'raw lines of code' is also a poor proxy for programming effort unless the counting methodology (including comments, blank lines, library calls, and custom functions) is precisely defined and the original code is made available or described in detail. Without these, the headline 'reduces programming effort by up to 90%' is an unsubstantiated quantitative claim. Please provide the counting rules and, if possible, the original code or a detailed reconstruction of the baseline.
  4. [Section 4.2] The label-generation thresholds are free parameters whose influence on the comparison is not analyzed. For APD, the authors choose a fixed SUDS threshold of 50; for WESAD, they use a per-subject average STAI threshold. If the original studies used different binarization rules, the label distributions would differ and the classification accuracies would not be comparable. The paper does not confirm that these thresholds match those of Schmidt et al. and Zhou et al., nor does it report the class balance produced by these thresholds. Please verify the thresholds against the original papers or state explicitly that these choices are part of the AffectEval implementation, and discuss their effect on the reported results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5] The sentence 'one-hot encoding is automatically performed is automatically performed for categorical features' contains a duplicated phrase; it should read 'one-hot encoding is automatically performed for categorical features.'
  2. [Table 2] In the Zhou et al. section of Table 2, the AffectEval Ensemble row shows identical values for APD and WESAD (86.29 accuracy, 67.52 AUC vs. 86.29 accuracy, 67.53 AUC). This is almost certainly a transcription or copy-paste error and should be corrected, as it currently obscures the WESAD ensemble comparison (original: 99.0 accuracy, 96.9 AUC).
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The abstract claims 'reduces programming effort by up to 90%, as measured by the reduction in raw lines of code,' while Section 4.4 reports 90% for Schmidt et al. and 89% for Zhou et al. The phrasing should be made consistent and the 'up to' qualifier clarified to indicate which experiment yields the maximum.
  4. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'we replicate a subset of the findings of Schmidt et al. using the physiological modalities from WESAD' is slightly inconsistent with Section 4.3's blanket 'replicating [40, 51]' language; please use consistent terminology about the scope of replication throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: AffectEval is validated against external published benchmarks, though its universal performance claim is contradicted by its own Table 2.

full rationale

The paper's validation chain is not circular. AffectEval is evaluated by re-implementing two published affective-computing studies (Schmidt et al. [40] and Zhou et al. [51]) on the public WESAD and APD datasets, and the framework's outputs in Table 2 are compared directly with the prior papers' reported accuracies, AUC scores, and F1-scores. The replication choices (signals, segmentation, features, labels, classifiers, cross-validation) are taken from the prior publications rather than fit to make the framework's own claims true; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claimed result is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to establish. The only self-citation is that Emily Zhou is first author of both this paper and the replicated Zhou et al. [51] study; that citation is not load-bearing because [51] is a published, externally accessible benchmark with fixed experimental choices, and the present paper does not invoke [51] to justify AffectEval's design or performance. The 90%/89% line-of-code reduction is an estimate based on the authors' own code because the original implementations are not public, which makes it hard to verify, but it is a measurement claim rather than a circular derivation. Section 4.3's claim that 'our pipelines achieved the same or better accuracies, AUC scores, and F1-scores across all experiments' is contradicted by Table 2 (for example, WESAD SVM accuracy is 57.16 +/- 1.25 versus the original 86.0, and WESAD ensemble accuracy is 86.29 versus 99.0); however, this is an empirical overstatement or internal-validity problem, not a circularity of the kind where an output reduces by construction to an input. Section 5.3 candidly lists limitations such as lack of image, audio, and text support and no real-time or distributed processing, which do not create a circular derivation. Overall, the core claim is anchored in external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a software engineering paper with no theoretical derivation. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the standard pipeline decomposition, the validity of the chosen replication studies, the correctness of label-generation thresholds, and the use of lines of code as an effort proxy.

free parameters (2)
  • APD SUDS binarization threshold = 50
    Used to convert SUDS self-report scores into binary stress labels for APD (Section 4.2). The value is taken from prior work, not fitted here, but it determines all APD results.
  • WESAD STAI per-subject threshold = subject-specific average STAI score
    Used to binarize WESAD stress labels from STAI questionnaire responses (Section 4.2). The threshold is dynamic per subject and follows the replicated Zhou et al. methodology.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five-component affective computing pipeline (signal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, feature selection, classification) is a valid decomposition for diverse affective computing tasks.
    The design of AffectEval is built directly on this decomposition from Oliveira et al. [35] (Figure 1, Section 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Reduction in raw lines of code is a meaningful proxy for reduction in programming effort.
    Section 4.4 uses lines of code as the sole measure of effort; no controlled baseline or user study is provided to support this proxy.
  • domain assumption Replicating two prior studies (Schmidt et al., Zhou et al.) is sufficient to demonstrate cross-domain generalizability.
    Section 4.3 generalizes from two datasets and two task types to multimodal, multi-domain support, without testing other modalities or applications.
  • domain assumption The SUDS and STAI questionnaire thresholds faithfully reproduce the stress labels of the original studies.
    Section 4.2 uses a fixed SUDS cutoff of 50 and per-subject average STAI thresholds; if these differ from the original studies, the label generation is not a true replication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AffectEval: A Modular and Customizable Framework for Affective Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNW2VLRM

@misc{pith2026250421184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AffectEval: A Modular and Customizable Framework for Affective Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNW2VLRM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21184}
}
read the original abstract

The field of affective computing focuses on recognizing, interpreting, and responding to human emotions, and has broad applications across education, child development, and human health and wellness. However, developing affective computing pipelines remains labor-intensive due to the lack of software frameworks that support multimodal, multi-domain emotion recognition applications. This often results in redundant effort when building pipelines for different applications. While recent frameworks attempt to address these challenges, they remain limited in reducing manual effort and ensuring cross-domain generalizability. We introduce AffectEval, a modular and customizable framework to facilitate the development of affective computing pipelines while reducing the manual effort and duplicate work involved in developing such pipelines. We validate AffectEval by replicating prior affective computing experiments, and we demonstrate that our framework reduces programming effort by up to 90%, as measured by the reduction in raw lines of code.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key components of an affective computing pipeline, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of AffectEval components. We extend the components identified by [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This list is then passed to the Pipeline, which executes each component’s functions in order. Customizability: AffectEval allows users to modify and aug￾ment its functionalities as needed at both the component- and method-level. Each component has a default implementation that extends from an abstract base class (ABC), but users can choose to implement their own versions of each class as needed. Each predefined comp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example instantiation of AffectEval. Solid outlines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The workflow of AffectEval-based implementation to replicate 3-class affect recognition and binary stress detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 5 Discussion Our successful reproduction of previous work highlights the contri￾butions of AffectEval as a framework for creating affective com￾puting pipelines. We showed that AffectEval supports multimodal, multi-domain applications and quantify the reduction in manu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of manual effort required for pipeline implementation. work that can be achieved by using AffectEval. This section com￾pares AffectEval to other existing affective computing frameworks and illustrates the role of modularity and customizability in making it a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    146 SUDS: The Subjective Units of Distress Scale

    2014. 146 SUDS: The Subjective Units of Distress Scale. In Concurrent Treatment of PTSD and Substance Use Disorders Using Prolonged Exposure (COPE): Patient Workbook . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199334513.005.0013 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/140343593/chapter-ag- pdf/45093913/book_1351_section_140343593.ag.pdf

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, San- jay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dandelion Mané, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Mur...

  3. [3]

    Renan Vinicius Aranha, Cléber Gimenez Corrêa, and Fátima L. S. Nunes. 2021. Adapting Software with Affective Computing: A Systematic Review. IEEE Trans- actions on Affective Computing 12, 4 (2021), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TAFFC.2019.2902379

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Rawin Assabumrungrat, Soravitt Sangnark, Thananya Charoenpattarawut, Wipa- mas Polpakdee, Thapanun Sudhawiyangkul, Ekkarat Boonchieng, and Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn. 2022. Ubiquitous Affective Computing: A Review. IEEE Sensors Journal 22, 3 (2022), 1867–1881. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3138269

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Deger Ayata, Yusuf Yaslan, and Mustafa Kamaşak. 2017. Emotion recognition via galvanic skin response: Comparison of machine learning algorithms and feature extraction methods. IU-Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering 17, 1 (2017), 3147–3156

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Dario Bertero, Farhad Bin Siddique, Chien-Sheng Wu, Yan Wan, Ricky Ho Yin Chan, and Pascale Fung. 2016. Real-Time Speech Emotion and Sentiment Recog- nition for Interactive Dialogue Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Jian Su, Kevin Duh, and Xavier Carreras (Eds.). Association for Computatio...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1110 2016

  7. [7]

    Bota, Chen Wang, Ana L

    Patrícia J. Bota, Chen Wang, Ana L. N. Fred, and Hugo Plácido Da Silva. 2019. A Review, Current Challenges, and Future Possibilities on Emotion Recognition Using Machine Learning and Physiological Signals. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 140990– 141020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2944001

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Jason J Braithwaite, Derrick G Watson, Robert Jones, and Mickey Rowe

    work page

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Leo Breiman. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 5–32. https: //doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/psych/saal/guide- electrodermal-activity.pdf

  3. [11]

    Carlos Carreiras, Ana Priscila Alves, André Lourenço, Filipe Canento, Hugo Silva, Ana Fred, et al. 2015–. BioSPPy: Biosignal Processing in Python. https: //github.com/PIA-Group/BioSPPy/ [Online; accessed <today>]

    2015

  4. [12]

    Teah-Marie Bynion and Matthew T. Feldner. 2017. Self-Assessment Manikin. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-28099-8_77-1

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Antonio R Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Hanna C Damasio. 1991. Somatic markers and the guidance of behavior: Theory and preliminary testing. Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction (Nov 1991), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780195062847.003.0011

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Zi Cheng, Lin Shu, Jinyan Xie, and C. L. Philip Chen. 2017. A novel ECG-based real-time detection method of negative emotions in wearable applications. In 2017 International Conference on Security, Pattern Analysis, and Cybernetics (SPAC). 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPAC...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Maria Egger, Matthias Ley, and Sten Hanke. 2019. Emotion Recognition from Physiological Signal Analysis: A Review. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Com- puter Science 343 (2019), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2019.04.009 The proceedings of AmI, the 2018 European Confer...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Juan Antonio Domínguez-Jiménez, Kiara Coralia Campo-Landines, Juan C Martínez-Santos, Enrique J Delahoz, and Sonia H Contreras-Ortiz. 2020. A machine learning model for emotion recognition from physiological signals. Biomedical signal processing and control 55 (2020), 101646

    2020

  9. [17]

    Giorgos Giannakakis, Dimitris Grigoriadis, Katerina Giannakaki, Olympia Siman- tiraki, Alexandros Roniotis, and Manolis Tsiknakis. 2022. Review on Psychological Stress Detection Using Biosignals. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 13, 1 (2022), 440–460. https://doi.org/1...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Ferri, P

    F.J. Ferri, P. Pudil, M. Hatef, and J. Kittler. 1994. Comparative study of techniques for large-scale feature selection* *This work was suported by a SERC grant GR/E 97549. The first author was also supported by a FPI grant from the Spanish MEC, PF92 73546684. In Pattern Recog...

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    Shalom Greene, Himanshu Thapliyal, and Allison Caban-Holt. 2016. A Survey of Affective Computing for Stress Detection: Evaluating technologies in stress detection for better health. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 5, 4 (2016), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2016.2590178

    2016

  12. [20]

    Pedro Gomes. 2018–. pyHRV - Open-Source Python Toolbox for Heart Rate Vari- ability. https://github.com/PGomes92/hrv-toolkit/ [Online; accessed <today>]

    2018

  13. [21]

    The MathWorks Inc. 2022. MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2022b) . Natick, Mas- sachusetts, United States. https://www.mathworks.com

    2022

  14. [22]

    William S. Helton. 2004. Short Stress State Questionnaire. PsycTESTS Dataset (2004). https://doi.org/10.1037/t57758-000

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima

    Ian T. Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima. 2016. Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374, 2065 (Apr 2016), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202

    2016

  16. [24]

    Yueqi Jiang, Ziyang Zhang, and Xiao Sun. 2023. MMDA: A Multimodal Dataset for Depression and Anxiety Detection. In Pattern Recognition, Computer Vision, and Image Processing. ICPR 2022 International Workshops and Challenges: Montreal, QC, Canada, August 21–25, 2022, Proceeding...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Sander Koelstra, Christian Muhl, Mohammad Soleymani, Jong-Seok Lee, Ashkan Yazdani, Touradj Ebrahimi, Thierry Pun, Anton Nijholt, and Ioannis Patras. 2012. DEAP: A Database for Emotion Analysis Using Physiological Signals. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 3, 1 (2012), ...

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Muhammad Khateeb, Syed Muhammad Anwar, and Majdi Alnowami. 2021. Multi- Domain Feature Fusion for Emotion Classification Using DEAP Dataset. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 12134–12142. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051281

    2021

  19. [27]

    Radhika Kuttala, Ramanathan Subramanian, and Venkata Ramana Murthy Oru- ganti. 2023. Multimodal Hierarchical CNN Feature Fusion for Stress Detection. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 6867–6878. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3237545

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sylvia D Kreibig. 2010. Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological psychology 84, 3 (2010), 394–421

    2010

  21. [29]

    Yuanyuan Liu, Ke Wang, Lin Wei, Jingying Chen, Yibing Zhan, Dapeng Tao, and Zhe Chen. 2024. Affective Computing for Healthcare: Recent Trends, Applica- tions, Challenges, and Beyond. arXiv:2402.13589 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2402.13589

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. R. Liebowitz. 1987. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). https://psycnet. apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft07671-000

    1987

  23. [31]

    Lau, Jan C

    Dominique Makowski, Tam Pham, Zen J. Lau, Jan C. Brammer, François Lespinasse, Hung Pham, Christopher Schölzel, and S. H. Annabel Chen. 2021. NeuroKit2: A Python toolbox for neurophysiological signal processing. Behavior Research Methods 53, 4 (feb 2021), 168–1696. https://doi...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Andrej Luneski, Panagiotis D Bamidis, and Madga Hitoglou-Antoniadou. 2008. Affective computing and medical informatics: state of the art in emotion-aware medical applications. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 136 (2008), 517–522

    2008

  25. [33]

    Wes McKinney. 2010. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Stéfan van der Walt and Jarrod Millman (Eds.). 51 – 56

    2010

  26. [34]

    Theresa M Marteau and Hilary Bekker. 1992. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British journal of clinical Psychology 31, 3 (1992), 301–306

    1992

  27. [35]

    Alarcão, Teresa Chambel, and Manuel J

    João Oliveira, Soraia M. Alarcão, Teresa Chambel, and Manuel J. Fonseca. 2023. MetaFERA: A meta-framework for creating emotion recognition frameworks for physiological signals. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 4 (Jun 2023), 9785–9815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15249-5

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Silvan Mertes, Dominik Schiller, Michael Dietz, Elisabeth André, and Flo- rian Lingenfelser. 2024. The AffectToolbox: Affect Analysis for Everyone. arXiv:2402.15195 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15195

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine ...

    2011

  30. [38]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Des- maison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, L...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Polak, and Przemysław Kazienko

    Stanisław Saganowski, Bartosz Perz, Adam G. Polak, and Przemysław Kazienko

  32. [40]

    James Russell. 1980. A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (12 1980), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    Hashini Senaratne, Levin Kuhlmann, Kirsten Ellis, Glenn Melvin, and Sharon Oviatt. 2021. A Multimodal Dataset and Evaluation for Feature Estimators of Temporal Phases of Anxiety. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3462244.3479900

    2021

  34. [42]

    Cho, Ali R

    Md Mobashir Shandhi, Peter J. Cho, Ali R. Roghanizad, Karnika Singh, Will Wang, Oana M. Enache, Amanda Stern, Rami Sbahi, Bilge Tatar, Sean Fiscus, and et al. 2022. A method for intelligent allocation of diagnostic testing by leveraging data from Commercial Wearable Devices: A...

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Philip Schmidt, Attila Reiss, Robert Duerichen, Claus Marberger, and Kristof Van Laerhoven. 2018. Introducing WESAD, a Multimodal Dataset for Wearable Stress and Affect Detection. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242969.3242985

    2018

  36. [44]

    Storch, Ipsit Vahia, Stephen T

    Erin Smith, Eric A. Storch, Ipsit Vahia, Stephen T. Wong, Helen Lavretsky, Jeffrey L. Cummings, and Harris A. Eyre. 2021. Affective computing for late-life mood and cognitive disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12 (Dec 2021). https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyt.2021.782183

    2021

  37. [45]

    Paul van Gent, Haneen Farah, Nicole Nes, and B. Arem. 2018. Heart Rate Analysis for Human Factors: Development and Validation of an Open Source Toolkit for Noisy Naturalistic Heart Rate Data

    2018

  38. [46]

    Karan Sharma, Claudio Castellini, Egon L Van Den Broek, Alin Albu-Schaeffer, and Friedhelm Schwenker. 2019. A dataset of continuous affect annotations and physiological signals for emotion analysis. Scientific data 6, 1 (2019), 196

    2019

  39. [47]

    2006.Estimation of dependences based on empirical data

    Vladimir Vapnik. 2006.Estimation of dependences based on empirical data. Springer Science & Business Media

    2006

  40. [48]

    Johannes Wagner, Elisabeth André, and Frank Jung. 2009. Smart sensor integra- tion: A framework for multimodal emotion recognition in real-time. In 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2009

  41. [49]

    Guido Van Rossum and Fred L Drake Jr. 1995. Python reference manual. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam

    1995

  42. [50]

    David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (1988), 1063–1070. https: //doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

    1988 doi

  43. [51]

    Emily Zhou, Mohammad Soleymani, and Maja J. Matarić. 2023. Investigating the Generalizability of Physiological Characteristics of Anxiety. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) . 4848–4855. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM58861.2023.10385292

    2023

  44. [52]

    Yan Wang, Wei Song, Wei Tao, Antonio Liotta, Dawei Yang, Xinlei Li, Shuyong Gao, Yixuan Sun, Weifeng Ge, Wei Zhang, and Wenqiang Zhang. 2022. A System- atic Review on Affective Computing: Emotion Models, Databases, and Recent Advances. arXiv:2203.06935 [cs.MM] https://arxiv.or...

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chiara Zucco, Barbara Calabrese, and Mario Cannataro. 2017. Sentiment analysis and affective computing for depression monitoring. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) . 1988–1995. https://doi. org/10.1109/BIBM.2017.8217966

    2017

  46. [55]

    Jing Zhu, Ying Wang, Rong La, Jiawei Zhan, Junhong Niu, Shuai Zeng, and Xiping Hu. 2019. Multimodal Mild Depression Recognition Based on EEG-EM Synchronization Acquisition Network. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 28196–28210. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901950

    2019

  47. [2015]

    https://www.tensorflow.org/ Software available from tensorflow.org

    TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. https://www.tensorflow.org/ Software available from tensorflow.org

  48. [2023]

    IEEE Transactions on Affective Com- puting 14, 3 (2023), 1876–1897

    Emotion Recognition for Everyday Life Using Physiological Signals From Wearables: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Transactions on Affective Com- puting 14, 3 (2023), 1876–1897. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3176135

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.