↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Physiological Signal Analysis Techniques and Classifiers for Automatic Emotional Evaluation of Audiovisual Contents

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Comparison of Physiological Signal Analysis Techniques and Classifiers for Automatic Emotional Evaluation of Audiovisual Contents
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrián Colomer Granero, Félix Fuentes-Hurtado, Valery Naranjo Ornedo, Jaime Guixeres Provinciale, Jose M. Ausín, Mariano Alcañiz Raya

Abstract

This work focuses on finding the most discriminatory or representative features that allow to classify commercials according to negative, neutral and positive effectiveness based on the Ace Score index. For this purpose, an experiment involving forty-seven participants was carried out. In this experiment electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) and respiration data were acquired while subjects were watching a 30-min audiovisual content. This content was composed by a submarine documentary and nine commercials (one of them the ad under evaluation). After the signal pre-processing, four sets of features were extracted from the physiological signals using different state-of-the-art metrics. These features computed in time and frequency domains are the inputs to several basic and advanced classifiers. An average of 89.76% of the instances was correctly classified according to the Ace Score index. The best results were obtained by a classifier consisting of a combination between AdaBoost and Random Forest with automatic selection of features. The selected features were those extracted from GSR and HRV signals. These results are promising in the audiovisual content evaluation field by means of physiological signal processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 17%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 33 23%
Computer Science 18 13%
Neuroscience 14 10%
Psychology 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 41 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,856,861
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#765
of 1,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,663
of 355,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.