Emotion Detection in Older Adults Using Physiological Signals from Wearable Sensors

Andrew M. Kiselica; Himanshu Thapliyal; Md. Saif Hassan Onim

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Emotion Detection in Older Adults Using Physiological Signals from Wearable Sensors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper aims to show that emotion intensity in older adults can be predicted from wrist-worn physiological signals alone, without cameras or facial analysis.

desk verdict New older-adult physiology dataset with FEA-derived emotion labels, but the labels are unvalidated and the models were tuned on the test set, so the headline R² claims are not trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08167 v1 pith:LAAW7SCU submitted 2025-07-10 cs.HC cs.LG

Md. Saif Hassan Onim , Andrew M. Kiselica , Himanshu Thapliyal This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.LG

keywords emotiondetectionolderadultsphysiologicalsignalswearablesensorsTrierSocialStressTestRandomForestregressionedge-basedrecognition

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

This paper aims to show that the emotional intensity of older adults can be read from physiological signals captured by wrist-worn sensors, removing the need for cameras, facial analysis, or active participation. The authors report on 39 adults aged 60-80 who underwent the Trier Social Stress Test while wearing two commercial sensor wristbands, with facial-expression analysis used only to create training labels. A Random Forest model then predicted Positive, Negative, and Neutral emotion intensity from the sensor data alone, reaching $R^2$ values of 0.80, 0.78, and 0.76 respectively under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. If this holds, continuous emotion monitoring could run entirely on-device, with privacy advantages for hospitals, assisted living, and care of people with dementia, PTSD, or limited communication.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a synchronized pipeline: the Trier Social Stress Test induces emotional responses; a commercial facial-expression analysis module based on the Facial Action Coding System converts those responses into continuous intensity labels for Positive, Negative, and Neutral emotion; and wrist-worn sensor devices record electrodermal activity, blood volume pulse, inter-beat intervals, temperature, and accelerometer signals. A Random Forest regression model, trained with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation on independently normalized train/test splits, maps the physiological features to the intensity labels. The Random Forest is the component that carries the predictive claim, and the paper credits its ensemble averaging with the generalization that linear models and deep networks do not reach on this small dataset.

What would settle it

A study that records the same TSST sessions with both facial-expression analysis scores and participants' self-reported emotion intensity, then trains the Random Forest on the self-report labels; if $R^2$ drops far below 0.78 or the two labeling methods correlate weakly, the physiological signals were predicting the facial-expression algorithm's outputs, not felt emotion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that continuous emotion intensity -- specifically Positive, Negative, and Neutral -- can be predicted from wrist-worn physiological signals alone in older adults, with no video or facial-expression input at prediction time. Using data from 39 adults aged 60-80 exposed to the Trier Social Stress Test, the authors report that a Random Forest regressor achieves $R^2$ values of 0.8033 for positive, 0.782 for negative, and 0.7636 for neutral emotion, with mean squared error as low as 0.0006, under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. They interpret this as evidence that emotion recognition can be accurate using only sensor data, eliminating the need for visual or behavioral inputs, while remaining compatible with edge deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that the facial-expression analysis software's intensity scores really measure how strongly each participant felt the emotion, so the models are trained on true emotion rather than on another algorithm's guesses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Emotion monitoring in hospitals and assisted-living settings could run without cameras, avoiding the privacy cost of facial surveillance while still tracking a person's emotional state.
Because the top performer is an ensemble of decision trees rather than a deep network, the method can run on low-power edge hardware instead of cloud servers.
Continuous intensity values, not just discrete emotion labels, can be predicted, giving caregivers a graded signal rather than a yes/no emotion tag.
For people who cannot speak or actively report feelings, such as some ADRD patients, passive wrist-worn sensing could provide emotion estimates without requiring participation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the facial-expression-derived labels are only a proxy for expressed facial movement, the reported accuracy is an upper bound on how well wrist sensors predict that proxy; agreement with felt emotion could be lower.
The same feature set and protocol could plausibly extend from three coarse emotion categories to the finer-grained negative emotions listed in the dataset, since the paper's 12-category labels include sadness, anger, fear, contempt, disgust, confusion, and frustration.
Because the participants were healthy older adults screened for medical conditions, translation to clinical populations with ADRD or PTSD should be validated before deployment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth knowing: this is a small empirical paper with a genuinely new dataset—39 older adults under TSST, wristband EDA/BVP/IBI plus camera-derived FEA intensity labels—and the methods are off-the-shelf regressors. The reported Random Forest R² of 0.78–0.80 is the best case for physiological-only emotion regression in this population. But I don't trust those numbers, and the stress-test note is right about the deeper problem.

What's genuinely useful: older adults are underrepresented in physiological emotion recognition; TSST is a reasonable stress induction; the LOSO split by participant is correct; they synchronized wearable data with face-based labels; and the feature/emotion correlation heatmap is honest about weak linear relationships.

The FEA labels are the load-bearing problem. The paper calls them “ground truth” but never validates them against self-report, expert AU coding, or known TSST phase effects. In older adults facial expressivity can be reduced, and FEA's intensity scores are model outputs, so predicting them from wristband signals may just be predicting another model. No evidence shows that positive/negative/neutral intensities track the stress/recovery phases (T1–T5). That validation would be a short experiment, and its absence is telling.

Second, Section 3.3 states hyperparameters were chosen based on the best-performing set on test data. That invalidates the R²/MSE as unbiased generalization estimates; it inflates reported performance. They report mean scores without variance across LOSO folds; with 39 subjects, fold-to-fold spread matters and is absent.

Minor: no code/data are provided, and self-citations are frequent, though the cited prior work is the relevant literature, not a problem by itself. The abstract says 40 and the body says 39 due to data corruption; that is fine but could be stated more clearly.

Bottom line: the dataset may be reusable, but the central claim that emotion recognition is “accurately achieved” is not supported as written. Would I send it to review? Yes—the dataset and population are worth referee time, and the label-validation and evaluation flaws are fixable in principle. As it stands, the claims should be heavily revised.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a wearable-sensor-only framework for emotion recognition in older adults. Physiological signals from the Empatica E4 and Shimmer3 GSR+ wristbands are paired with emotion-intensity labels produced by iMotions' Facial Expression Analysis (FEA) module during a Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) protocol. The authors train seven classical regression models plus a DNN and an MLP to predict positive, negative, and neutral emotion intensities, reporting that Random Forest achieves the best R² (0.782 for negative, 0.8033 for positive) and lowest MSE. They conclude that emotion recognition can be accurately achieved using only physiological sensor data, with implications for ADRD and PTSD populations.

Significance. If the results were valid, the contribution would be useful: a 39-participant older-adult dataset, a physiological-only regression pipeline, and an edge-deployable classical-ML baseline are all potentially valuable for privacy-preserving affect monitoring. The paper also takes reasonable precautions in splitting by participant and normalizing after the split. However, two load-bearing issues undermine the central claim: the FEA-derived labels are never validated as ground truth for emotion, and hyperparameters were selected using the test data. As a result, the reported R² and MSE values cannot be interpreted as unbiased estimates of emotion-recognition performance. The significance of the paper therefore depends entirely on whether the target variable itself is meaningful, which the manuscript does not establish.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1] The ground-truth labels are produced solely by iMotions' FEA module, and the paper states that this 'automated analysis ensures a standardized, objective method for labeling emotions.' No validation is provided against self-report, expert FACS coding, or any independent measure of emotion. This is load-bearing because the central claim—that physiological signals alone can accurately recognize emotion—rests on FEA intensity scores actually reflecting felt emotion. Older adults may show reduced or atypical facial expressivity, and TSST is a stress-induction protocol, so the FEA outputs could be measuring facial muscle movements that do not correspond to the intended emotional states. The authors should provide evidence that FEA labels track emotion in this population, for example by comparing FEA intensities to self-reported affect or to known TSST phase effects.
[Section 3.3] The hyperparameters in Table 3 were, in the authors' words, 'chosen based on the best-performing set on test data after multiple trial and error.' This is a direct use of the test set for model selection, which invalidates the R² and MSE values in Tables 4 and 5 as unbiased estimates of generalization. The comparison between Random Forest and the other models is therefore not a fair out-of-sample evaluation. The authors should use nested cross-validation or a separate validation set for hyperparameter tuning, and then re-report test performance.
[Section 2 and Section 4] The TSST is a standardized stress-induction protocol, yet the paper never demonstrates that the FEA-derived positive, negative, and neutral intensity labels vary appropriately across the experimental phases (T1–T5). For instance, one would expect stress-related negative affect to increase during the speech and arithmetic tasks and decrease during recovery, but no such phase-wise analysis is presented. Without this evidence, it is unclear whether the labels have construct validity or whether the models are simply fitting to arbitrary variation in FEA output. This issue is directly tied to the validity of the regression targets in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).
[Tables 4 and 5] The reported R² and MSE values are only means across LOSO folds, with no standard deviations, per-fold results, or significance tests. With 39 participants, the differences between Random Forest and the next-best models (e.g., Dense Network) could easily be within noise. The conclusion that 'Random Forest outperforms other models' is therefore not statistically supported. The authors should report fold-level variance and perform pairwise significance tests (e.g., corrected repeated k-fold or Wilcoxon tests).

minor comments (6)

[Section 3.3] The term 'Leave One Sample Out' is misleading because the procedure actually leaves one subject out; it should be called 'Leave One Subject Out' cross-validation.
[Table 3] Both the DNN and MLP use ReLU as the output-layer activation, but regression targets in Table 2 include negative values (e.g., Joy baseline -0.663, Fear -0.842). A ReLU output cannot produce negative predictions, which is inconsistent with the label distribution. A linear output activation should be used.
[Section 3.1] The description of the 60-sample moving average is incomplete: the manuscript does not specify the sampling rate, window duration, stride, or how these smoothed samples are aggregated into regression instances. This information is needed to assess temporal leakage and reproduce the pipeline.
[Table 1] The caption expands BVP as 'Blood Volume Pressure' instead of 'Blood Volume Pulse' (or 'Photoplethysmography'), and 'TMP' as 'Temperature' while the main text uses 'ST' for skin temperature; the notation should be consistent.
[References] Reference [13] is the iMotions FEA product page, not a peer-reviewed validation study. The authors should cite published work on FEA or FACS-based labeling accuracy, especially for older adult populations.
[Figure 4] The correlation heatmap is mentioned as showing 'small correlations,' but no correlation values are reported or discussed quantitatively. A brief numerical summary would help the reader interpret why linear models perform poorly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the physiology-to-FEA-label regression is not forced by construction; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

We traced the claimed derivation chain: (1) labels are generated by iMotion's FEA from facial video (Section 3.1), (2) features are EDA/BVP/IBI and other wearable signals, (3) classical regressors map features to labels (Sections 3.2-3.3), (4) R^2/MSE are computed with Eq. (1)-(2). No equation defines a feature as a function of the label or vice versa; the input modality (wearables) and target modality (facial-expression-derived intensity) are independent measurements, so the reported predictions are not statistically forced by construction. The self-citations [18]-[21], [24] appear only as background in the Introduction and are not used as a mathematical premise, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz; hence they are not load-bearing. The genuinely weak points are validity issues rather than circularity: FEA pseudo-labels are asserted as 'standardized, objective' (Section 3.1) without validation against self-report or expert coding, and hyperparameters were 'chosen based on the best-performing set on test data' (Section 3.3), which inflates the reported scores. Both undermine the strength of the conclusion, but neither makes the physiology-to-label mapping equivalent to its inputs by construction. We therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on domain assumptions about the validity of FEA-derived labels, the emotion-eliciting power of TSST, feature sufficiency, and population representativeness. The model hyperparameters are free parameters tuned on the test set, which the authors disclose. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Random Forest n_estimators = 100
Chosen on test data (Section 3.3).
DNN architecture (hidden layers=3, epochs=50, lr=0.0001) = 3 layers, 50 epochs, 0.0001
Chosen on test data (Section 3.3).
KNN k (k=3) = 3
Chosen on test data (Section 3.3).
Gradient Boosting lr=0.1, estimators=100 = 0.1, 100
Chosen on test data (Section 3.3).
MLP architecture (10 hidden layers, lr=0.001, max_iter=500) = 10 layers, 0.001, 500
Chosen on test data (Section 3.3).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption FEA-derived emotion intensity labels are valid ground truth
Section 3.1 treats iMotion FEA as an 'objective method for labeling emotions' without comparing to self-report or expert coding. If FEA scores are not true emotion, the models learn to predict a camera-based model's outputs.
domain assumption TSST produces a usable range of positive, negative, and neutral emotions
TSST is designed to induce stress, mainly negative affect. The paper assumes it yields enough variation in positive and neutral intensity for regression, but no manipulation check is reported.
domain assumption The selected physiological features are sufficient for emotion discrimination
The feature set (EDA, BVP, IBI plus motion/temperature) is chosen without feature selection or domain justification; the correlation heatmap (Fig. 4) actually shows weak correlations, which the authors acknowledge.
domain assumption Healthy older adults are representative of target clinical populations (ADRD, PTSD)
Participants are screened healthy adults aged 60-80. The conclusion extrapolates to dementia and PTSD patients, but these populations are not studied and may have different physiological responses.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emotion Detection in Older Adults Using Physiological Signals from Wearable Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAAW7SCU

@misc{pith2026250708167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emotion Detection in Older Adults Using Physiological Signals from Wearable Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAAW7SCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08167}
}

read the original abstract

Emotion detection in older adults is crucial for understanding their cognitive and emotional well-being, especially in hospital and assisted living environments. In this work, we investigate an edge-based, non-obtrusive approach to emotion identification that uses only physiological signals obtained via wearable sensors. Our dataset includes data from 40 older individuals. Emotional states were obtained using physiological signals from the Empatica E4 and Shimmer3 GSR+ wristband and facial expressions were recorded using camera-based emotion recognition with the iMotion's Facial Expression Analysis (FEA) module. The dataset also contains twelve emotion categories in terms of relative intensities. We aim to study how well emotion recognition can be accomplished using simply physiological sensor data, without the requirement for cameras or intrusive facial analysis. By leveraging classical machine learning models, we predict the intensity of emotional responses based on physiological signals. We achieved the highest 0.782 r2 score with the lowest 0.0006 MSE on the regression task. This method has significant implications for individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD), as well as veterans coping with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or other cognitive impairments. Our results across multiple classical regression models validate the feasibility of this method, paving the way for privacy-preserving and efficient emotion recognition systems in real-world settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08167 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Proposed Emotion Detection Method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 2D Projection of the Labeled Dataset with PCA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Correlation Heatmap of the Features and Emotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Shen Ba and Xiao Hu. 2023. Measuring emotions in education using wearable devices: A systematic review. Computers & Education 200 (2023), 104797

work page 2023
[2]

Abeer Badawi, Somayya Elmoghazy, Samira Choudhury, Sara Elgazzar, Khalid Elgazzar, and Amer Burhan. 2024. A Novel Multimodal System to Predict Ag- itation in People with Dementia Within Clinical Settings: A Proof of Concept. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08882 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

Marios Belk, David Portugal, Panagiotis Germanakos, João Quintas, Eleni Christodoulou, and George Samaras. 2016. A Computer Mouse for Stress Identifi- cation of Older Adults at Work. InUser Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. UMAP

work page 2016
[4]

Melissa A Birkett. 2011. The Trier Social Stress Test protocol for inducing psychological stress. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) 56 (2011), e3238

work page 2011
[5]

Shuhao Chen, Ke Jiang, Haoji Hu, Haoze Kuang, Jianyi Yang, Jikui Luo, Xinhua Chen, and Yubo Li. 2021. Emotion recognition based on skin potential signals with a portable wireless device. Sensors 21, 3 (2021), 1018

work page 2021
[6]

So-Min Cheong, Carlos Bautista, and Luis Ortiz. 2020. Sensing physiological change and mental stress in older adults from hot weather. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 70171–70181

work page 2020
[7]

Angelo Costa, Jaime A Rincon, Carlos Carrascosa, Vicente Julian, and Paulo Novais. 2019. Emotions detection on an ambient intelligent system using wearable devices. Future Generation Computer Systems 92 (2019), 479–489

work page 2019
[8]

Franca Delmastro, Flavio Di Martino, and Cristina Dolciotti. 2020. Cognitive Training and Stress Detection in MCI Frail Older People Through Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 65573–65590

work page 2020

Show all 33 references

[9]

Ikram Ud Din, Ahmad Almogren, Joel JPC Rodrigues, and Ayman Altameem. 2024. Advancing Secure and Privacy-Preserved Decision-Making in IoT-Enabled Con- sumer Electronics via Multimodal Data Fusion. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics (2024)

2024
[10]

Eija Ferreira, Denzil Ferreira, SeungJun Kim, Pekka Siirtola, Juha Röning, Jodi F Forlizzi, and Anind K Dey. 2014. Assessing real-time cognitive load based on psycho-physiological measures for younger and older adults. In 2014 IEEE Symp. on Computational Intelligence, Cognitiv...

2014
[11]

Judith S Heinisch, Isabel Hübener, and Klaus David. 2018. The Impact of Physical Activities on the Physiological Response to Emotions. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). IEEE, 824–829

2018
[12]

Terence KL Hui and R Simon Sherratt. 2018. Coverage of emotion recognition for common wearable biosensors. Biosensors 8, 2 (2018), 30

2018
[13]

iMotions A/S. 2024. Facial Expression Analysis (FEA). https://imotions.com/ blog/publications/ Accessed: 2025-03-22

2024
[14]

Shiqi Jiang, Zhenjiang Li, Pengfei Zhou, and Mo Li. 2019. Memento: An emotion- driven lifelogging system with wearables. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN) 15, 1 (2019), 1–23

2019
[15]

Basel Kikhia, Thanos G Stavropoulos, Stelios Andreadis, Niklas Karvonen, Ioannis Kompatsiaris, Stefan Sävenstedt, Marten Pijl, and Catharina Melander. 2016. Utilizing a wristband sensor to measure the stress level for people with dementia. Sensors 16, 12 (2016), 1989

2016
[16]

Hyunbum Kim, Jalel Ben-Othman, Lynda Mokdad, and Paolo Bellavista. 2020. A virtual emotion detection architecture with two-way enabled delay bound toward evolutional emotion-based IoT services. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 21, 4 (2020), 1172–1181

2020
[17]

Canabal, Laura Gutierrez-Martin, Jose M Lanza- Gutierrez, Marta Portela-Garcia, and Celia Lopez-Ongil

Jose A Miranda, Manuel F. Canabal, Laura Gutierrez-Martin, Jose M Lanza- Gutierrez, Marta Portela-Garcia, and Celia Lopez-Ongil. 2021. Fear recognition for women using a reduced set of physiological signals.Sensors 21, 5 (2021), 1587

2021
[18]

Md Saif Hassan Onim, Elizabeth Rhodus, and Himanshu Thapliyal. 2023. A review of context-aware machine learning for stress detection. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine (2023)

2023
[19]

Md Saif Hassan Onim and Himanshu Thapliyal. 2023. Casd-oa: Context-aware stress detection for older adults with machine learning and cortisol biomarker. In Proceedings of the Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI 2023 . 103–108

2023
[20]

Md Saif Hassan Onim and Himanshu Thapliyal. 2024. Predicting stress in older adults with rnn and lstm from time series sensor data and cortisol. In 2024 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI) . IEEE, 300–306

2024
[21]

Md Saif Hassan Onim, Himanshu Thapliyal, and Elizabeth K Rhodus. 2024. Uti- lizing machine learning for context-aware digital biomarker of stress in older adults. Information 15, 5 (2024), 274

2024
[22]

Juan Carlos Quiroz, Elena Geangu, and Min Hooi Yong. 2018. Emotion recognition using smart watch sensor data: Mixed-design study. JMIR mental health 5, 3 (2018), e10153

2018
[23]

Martin Ragot, Nicolas Martin, Sonia Em, Nico Pallamin, and Jean-Marc Diverrez
[24]

Elizabeth K Rhodus, Md Saif Hassan Onim, Celeste Roberts, Sanjeev Kumar, Amer M Burhan, and Himanshu Thapliyal. 2024. Utilization of Wearable Devices as means for Remote Digital Biometric Data Collection in a community-based, rural randomized controlled trial among Alzheimer’s...

2024
[25]

Stanisław Saganowski, Joanna Komoszyńska, Maciej Behnke, Bartosz Perz, Do- minika Kunc, Bartłomiej Klich, Łukasz D Kaczmarek, and Przemysław Kazienko
[26]

Philip Schmidt, Attila Reiss, Robert Duerichen, Claus Marberger, and Kristof Van Laerhoven. 2018. Introducing wesad, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection. InProceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction. 400–408

2018
[27]

Lin Shu, Yang Yu, Wenzhuo Chen, Haoqiang Hua, Qin Li, Jianxiu Jin, and Xiang- min Xu. 2020. Wearable emotion recognition using heart rate data from a smart bracelet. Sensors 20, 3 (2020), 718

2020
[28]

Yang Wei, Yue Wu, and John Tudor. 2017. A real-time wearable emotion detection headband based on EEG measurement. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 263 (2017), 614–621

2017
[29]

Hamidan Z Wijasena, Ridi Ferdiana, and Sunu Wibirama. 2021. A survey of emo- tion recognition using physiological signal in wearable devices. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics Systems . IEEE, 1–6

2021
[30]

Cheng Xiefeng, Yue Wang, Shicheng Dai, Pengjun Zhao, and Qifa Liu. 2019. Heart sound signals can be used for emotion recognition. Scientific reports 9, 1 (2019), 6486

2019
[31]

Tianyi Zhang, Abdallah El Ali, Chen Wang, Alan Hanjalic, and Pablo Cesar. 2020. Corrnet: Fine-grained emotion recognition for video watching using wearable physiological sensors. Sensors 21, 1 (2020), 52

2020
[2018]

wearable sensors

Emotion recognition using physiological signals: laboratory vs. wearable sensors. In Advances in Human Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game Design: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Advances in Human Factors and Wearable Technologies, July 17-21, 20...

2017
[2022]

Scientific data 9, 1 (2022), 158

Emognition dataset: emotion recognition with self-reports, facial expres- sions, and physiology using wearables. Scientific data 9, 1 (2022), 158

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Shen Ba and Xiao Hu. 2023. Measuring emotions in education using wearable devices: A systematic review. Computers & Education 200 (2023), 104797

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Abeer Badawi, Somayya Elmoghazy, Samira Choudhury, Sara Elgazzar, Khalid Elgazzar, and Amer Burhan. 2024. A Novel Multimodal System to Predict Ag- itation in People with Dementia Within Clinical Settings: A Proof of Concept. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08882 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Marios Belk, David Portugal, Panagiotis Germanakos, João Quintas, Eleni Christodoulou, and George Samaras. 2016. A Computer Mouse for Stress Identifi- cation of Older Adults at Work. InUser Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. UMAP

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Melissa A Birkett. 2011. The Trier Social Stress Test protocol for inducing psychological stress. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) 56 (2011), e3238

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Shuhao Chen, Ke Jiang, Haoji Hu, Haoze Kuang, Jianyi Yang, Jikui Luo, Xinhua Chen, and Yubo Li. 2021. Emotion recognition based on skin potential signals with a portable wireless device. Sensors 21, 3 (2021), 1018

work page 2021

[6] [6]

So-Min Cheong, Carlos Bautista, and Luis Ortiz. 2020. Sensing physiological change and mental stress in older adults from hot weather. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 70171–70181

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Angelo Costa, Jaime A Rincon, Carlos Carrascosa, Vicente Julian, and Paulo Novais. 2019. Emotions detection on an ambient intelligent system using wearable devices. Future Generation Computer Systems 92 (2019), 479–489

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Franca Delmastro, Flavio Di Martino, and Cristina Dolciotti. 2020. Cognitive Training and Stress Detection in MCI Frail Older People Through Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 65573–65590

work page 2020