Emotion Dependent Facial Animation from Affective Speech

Engin Erzin; Rizwan Sadiq; Sasan AsadiAbadi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Emotion Dependent Facial Animation from Affective Speech

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Emotion-dependent speech-to-face regression beats a universal model: per-emotion networks reduce test MSE from 6.73 to 5.57 and win viewer preference.

desk verdict Useful but incremental idea; the emotion-dependence claim is confounded by model capacity and the numbers are overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03904 v1 pith:HO6FAKYN submitted 2019-08-11 eess.AS cs.MMcs.SD

Rizwan Sadiq , Sasan AsadiAbadi , Engin Erzin This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.MMcs.SD

keywords affectivespeech-drivenfacialanimationemotion-dependentshaperegressiondeepnetworkspeechemotionrecognitionPCAmodellandmarkSAVEEdatasetconvolutionalneuralnetworks

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

The paper tries to establish that facial animation driven by speech should be conditioned on the emotion being spoken, rather than learned as a single emotion-independent mapping from audio to face. It builds a two-stage system: a convolutional emotion recognizer labels each speech frame as one of seven emotions, then separate convolutional regressors, one per emotion, map speech spectra into PCA-based facial shape parameters, and the two most probable emotions' outputs are blended by their normalized probabilities. On the SAVEE dataset the emotion-dependent cascade reports lower mean squared error in predicted face shape than the all-combined universal model, and viewers rate its animations higher. If the claim holds, affectively aware conversational agents can move their faces more naturally from audio alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a cascade of two deep networks over a statistical face-shape bottleneck. A deep emotion recognition network uses three convolutional layers, a fully connected layer, and softmax to classify 40-band mel-spectrogram windows into seven emotions; utterance-level top-two probabilities are computed by frame voting with a confidence threshold and normalized. Seven deep shape regression networks, each with four convolutional layers and two fully connected layers, map the same spectral windows to 18 principal-component coefficients that represent 36 lower-face landmarks aligned by Procrustes analysis and covering about 99% of face-shape variation. The final predicted shape is the probability-weighted average of the top-two emotion regressors, then smoothed over a five-frame window to give the animation frame.

What would settle it

Train one universal DSRN with a total parameter count matched to the combined size of the seven emotion-specific networks, using identical folds and inputs. If its test MSE stays near 6.73, emotion conditioning is doing the work; if it drops to 5.57 or below, the paper's central comparison is a capacity effect rather than an emotion effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that emotion-dependent facial shape regression—separate deep shape regression networks trained within each of seven emotion categories and fused through the top-two emotion probabilities—produces more accurate facial animations than a single deep network trained on all emotions together. With true emotion labels the per-emotion regressor reaches test MSE 3.23; with the recognizer in front it reaches 5.57, compared with 6.73 for the all-combined baseline. Subjective preference scores also favor the emotion-dependent animations (3.03 versus 2.74 on a five-point scale). The paper interprets these results as evidence that emotional content carries information about facial movement that a universal regressor fails to exploit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the lower MSE comes from emotion conditioning, not from the roughly seven-fold larger parameter count of training seven separate regressors, since no capacity-matched universal model is tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The emotion-dependent cascade lowers test MSE in the 18-dimensional PCA shape space from 6.73 to 5.57 compared with the all-combined model, so the gain is a concrete numerical improvement on the benchmark.
Because the regressor with true emotion labels reaches 3.23 MSE, the gap between cascaded and true-label performance is attributable to emotion-recognition errors; improving the recognizer should directly improve animation accuracy.
The top-two fusion rule down-weights the second emotion only when the top emotion exceeds 65% frame-level confidence, so uncertain utterances are blended between two regressors rather than committed to a single emotion.
A single 18-parameter PCA face-shape space is sufficient for the per-emotion regressors to outperform one universal model, which supports the design choice of regressing into a low-dimensional shape space rather than raw landmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the fairest check on the central claim is a capacity-matched universal model; until that comparison runs, part of the reported gain could be parameter count rather than emotion conditioning.
Editorial inference: since the fusion uses only the top two emotions, weighting by all seven emotion probabilities is a natural extension and may produce smoother outputs when recognition confidence is spread.
Editorial inference: because each emotion-specific regressor trains on roughly one-seventh of the data, data augmentation or pretraining on all data before fine-tuning per emotion could push the reported numbers lower.

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

Here's the short version: the paper proposes a two-stage pipeline where a speech emotion classifier picks one or two emotions, and a set of per-emotion shape regressors (DSRNs) synthesize facial landmarks from audio. The per-emotion regression idea is a modest extension of the authors' earlier CNN work [22] and of Pham et al.'s LSTM work [20]; the new twist is that the regressors are trained separately per emotion and fused by the top-two emotion probabilities. The writing is clear, the preprocessing is careful (GPA, PCA), and the architecture details are complete enough to reproduce. So there is something here, but the central claim—that emotion-dependent modeling is what causes the improvement—is not established by the experiments.

The main problem is capacity. The emotion-dependent system trains seven DSRNs and at test time runs at least one of them (two, on average, given the fusion). The baseline is a single DSRN of the same architecture trained on all data. The test MSE comparison (5.57 vs 6.73, about 17% relative improvement) could reflect the extra parameters, an implicit ensemble effect, or both, rather than any actual benefit from conditioning on emotion. The paper needs a capacity-matched baseline: a universal network with roughly 7x hidden units, or an ensemble of seven universal networks, or some other control. Without that, the headline conclusion is not supported.

The second issue is overstatement. Section III.A.2 and the abstract say 'more than 65% reduction' in MSE, but that comes from validation curves during training, not from the test set. The deployed cascade's test improvement is about 17%. That is a meaningful difference, but the paper should report test numbers consistently and not cherry-pick the validation curve.

Other soft spots: no error bars or significance tests across the 5 folds; the subjective test uses 15 participants with no statistical analysis, and the mean difference (3.03 vs 2.74) is small; there is no comparison with prior emotion-aware methods (Pham et al. [20] is cited but never compared). All of these are fixable.

None of this is fatal to the idea. I would send it to peer review, but with a clear request for a capacity-matched control, test-set numbers in the abstract, and fold-wise variance. If the authors add those, the paper becomes a modest but honest contribution. As it stands, I wouldn't cite it for the causal claim.

I think the paper is from a group that knows the area; the issue is experimental rigor, not incoherence.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage system for speech-driven facial shape animation on the SAVEE dataset. In the first stage, a convolutional speech emotion recognition network (DERN) classifies each utterance into one of seven emotions, producing an utterance-level probability distribution. In the second stage, independent deep shape regression networks (DSRNs) are trained per emotion, and the final facial shape is obtained by fusing the outputs of the DSRNs for the top two emotion classes, weighted by the normalized utterance-level emotion probabilities. The central claim is that this emotion-dependent regression outperforms a universal emotion-independent model trained on all data combined, both in terms of MSE on PCA-based facial shape parameters and in a subjective preference study with 15 participants. The paper reports the DERN's per-emotion recognition accuracies, shows validation MSE curves, gives test MSE for the cascade versus the all-combined baseline, and reports average user preference scores. The authors conclude that emotion-dependent modeling is beneficial and suggest future improvements to the emotion recognition module.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would provide a useful engineering contribution to affective speech animation: it evaluates a clean two-stage pipeline on a standard dataset, reports explicit network architectures, and includes both objective and perceptual comparisons. The question of whether emotion-conditioned acoustic-to-facial regression is actually superior to a single universal model is of genuine interest. The paper is transparent about the experimental setup and uses 5-fold cross-validation, which is a strength. However, the central empirical claim is undermined by a capacity confound: the emotion-dependent system contains roughly seven times as many DSRN parameters and uses two model outputs at test time, while the baseline is a single network. The reported 'more than 65% reduction' is taken from validation curves, whereas the test table shows about 17%. The subjective test lacks significance testing. These issues are fixable with additional experiments and statistical reporting, so the work is a suitable candidate for major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)

[Section III.A.2, Table IV, and Figure 4] The sentence claiming 'more than 65% reduction in MSE compared to the emotion independent combined model' is based on validation curves in Figure 4, not on the deployed test cascade. Table IV reports test MSE of 5.57 versus 6.73, which is a reduction of approximately 17%. The headline claim should be corrected and should report the test-set number, or should be explicitly restricted to validation curves.
[Section III.A.2, Table IV] The central attribution of the improvement to emotion-dependent modeling is not established because the emotion-dependent system uses seven separate DSRNs with the same architecture as the single baseline, giving roughly seven times more parameters, and at test time it averages the outputs of two DSRNs. The observed gain could therefore reflect added model capacity or implicit ensembling rather than emotion conditioning. Please add a capacity-matched universal model (for example, a single DSRN with a comparable total parameter budget, or a comparable ensemble of all-combined models) and, ideally, a permutation test in which emotion labels are randomly reassigned to show that the specific emotion partition is responsible for the improvement.
[Section III.B, Table V, and Figure 5] The subjective preference claim rests on 15 participants and mean scores of 3.03 versus 2.74 with standard deviations near 0.9. No significance test is reported, so the difference is not shown to be reliable. Please report per-participant statistics, error bars for Figure 5, and a paired significance test. The objective MSE in Table IV should similarly be accompanied by fold-wise means and standard deviations or a significance test.
[Section III.A.1, Table III] The emotion recognition accuracies in Table III are reported as validation-set utterance-level accuracies, but the paper does not state how these accuracies vary across the five cross-validation folds. Reporting fold-wise variability would help assess whether the subsequent cascade results are stable, especially since the DSRN fusion depends on the estimated emotion probabilities.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'It's natural for humans' should be 'It is natural for humans'; 'The reminder of this paper' should be 'The remainder of this paper'; 'hyper learning rate optimizations' should be 'hyperparameter optimization' or 'learning rate optimization'; and 'In should be noted' is missing 'it'.
[Throughout] The dataset name is written inconsistently as 'SAVEE' and 'SA VEE' (with a space). Please use one consistent spelling, preferably 'SAVEE'.
[Section II.C] The phrase 'the top second emotion' is awkward; consider 'the second-ranked emotion' or 'the second most probable emotion'.
[Section III.A.2] Equation (3) sets the second emotion probability to zero when the top probability exceeds 0.65, which means the fusion in Equation (5) uses only the top emotion for high-confidence cases. This behavior deserves a brief explanatory sentence, because it is a design choice that affects the whole cascade.
[Section I and Section II.A] The SAVEE dataset contains recordings from only four male British actors, so gender and speaker diversity are limited. A sentence acknowledging this limitation and its implications for generalizing the emotion-dependent animation results would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical train-and-compare result, and no derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

I find no significant circularity in this paper. The central claim, that emotion-dependent DSRN models outperform a universal all-combined model, is an empirical observation from 5-fold cross-validated training and testing on the SAVEE dataset; it is not derived from a definition or from equations that assume the outcome. The fusion equation (5) combines two emotion-specific DSRN outputs with normalized probabilities, but nothing in the formulation forces the emotion-dependent MSE to be lower than the all-combined baseline; the reported improvement is an experimental result. The only self-citations, [22], are used to define the landmark-based facial shape representation and the PCA projection, which are standard input choices and are not load-bearing for the emotion-dependence comparison. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is repackaged as new. The paper's weakness is a potential capacity confound: seven emotion-specific DSRNs contain about seven times more parameters than the single all-combined baseline, so the observed MSE gap might partly reflect model capacity rather than emotion conditioning. That is a validity or experimental-design concern, not circularity, because the comparison is not forced by construction and could have gone the other way. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (PCA dimension, windows, fusion threshold) and domain assumptions about the SAVEE labels, landmark accuracy, and PCA sufficiency. No new physical entities or theoretical constructs are introduced.

free parameters (5)

PCA component count = 18
Set to cover approximately 99% of shape variation; changes the shape representation and therefore the regression target.
Acoustic temporal window Ka = 15
Chosen by hand; sets context window for spectral images.
Visual temporal window Kv = 5
Chosen by hand; sets temporal context for facial shape targets and averaging.
Confidence threshold for top emotion = 0.65
Introduced in Eq. (3) to decide when to ignore the second emotion in fusion; no sensitivity analysis.
Network hyperparameters (layer sizes, dropout, optimizer) = specified in Tables I and II
Standard choices, but no ablation showing they are optimal; the result may depend on them.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SAVEE emotion labels are accurate ground truth for partitioning and evaluation.
The per-emotion DSRNs and the emotion recognition training rely on these labels (Section II.A, II.D).
domain assumption The 18 PCA parameters preserve sufficient facial dynamics for the animation task.
The paper states 18 parameters cover 99% of variation, but no check that the animation quality is insensitive to truncation (Section II.B.2).
domain assumption Cubic interpolation of 25 Hz landmarks to 100 Hz accurately reconstructs the true facial motion.
This preprocessing step (Section II.B.2) is needed to match acoustic frame rate; interpolation error is not assessed.
domain assumption The emotion categories are mutually separable and acoustically to visually mappable within each category.
The benefit of separate per-emotion models assumes such separability (Section I, II.C).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emotion Dependent Facial Animation from Affective Speech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HO6FAKYN

@misc{pith2026190803904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emotion Dependent Facial Animation from Affective Speech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HO6FAKYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03904}
}

read the original abstract

In human-to-computer interaction, facial animation in synchrony with affective speech can deliver more naturalistic conversational agents. In this paper, we present a two-stage deep learning approach for affective speech driven facial shape animation. In the first stage, we classify affective speech into seven emotion categories. In the second stage, we train separate deep estimators within each emotion category to synthesize facial shape from the affective speech. Objective and subjective evaluations are performed over the SAVEE dataset. The proposed emotion dependent facial shape model performs better in terms of the Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss and in generating the landmark animations, as compared to training a universal model regardless of the emotion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03904 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Facial markers on the face: Blue markers are from the SAVEE dataset, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The MSE loss over the validation data along the epochs for the emotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Emotion category based average preference scores for the emotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[22]

Multimodal speech driven facial shape animation using deep neural networks

Sasan Asadiabadi, Rizwan Sadiq, and Engin Erzin. Multimodal speech driven facial shape animation using deep neural networks. In 2018 Asia- Paciﬁc Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC) , 2018

work page 2018
[20]

Speech-driven 3d facial animation with implicit emotional awareness: A deep learning approach

Hai Xuan Pham, Samuel Cheung, and Vladimir Pavlovic. Speech-driven 3d facial animation with implicit emotional awareness: A deep learning approach. In CVPR Workshops, pages 2328–2336, 2017

work page 2017
[1]

Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks

Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 1097–1105, 2012

2012
[2]

Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate

Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473, 2014

arXiv 2014
[3]

Deep speech 2: End-to-end speech recognition in english and mandarin

Dario Amodei, Sundaram Ananthanarayanan, Rishita Anubhai, Jingliang Bai, Eric Battenberg, Carl Case, Jared Casper, Bryan Catanzaro, Qiang Cheng, Guoliang Chen, et al. Deep speech 2: End-to-end speech recognition in english and mandarin. In International conference on machine learning, pages 173–182, 2016

2016
[4]

Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory

Hao Zhou, Minlie Huang, Tianyang Zhang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Bing Liu. Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Au- tomatic dialogue generation with expressed emotions

Chenyang Huang, Osmar Zaiane, Amine Trabelsi, and Nouha Dziri. Au- tomatic dialogue generation with expressed emotions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), volume 2, pages 49–54, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Speech emotion recognition using support vector machine

Yixiong Pan, Peipei Shen, and Liping Shen. Speech emotion recognition using support vector machine. International Journal of Smart Home , 6(2):101–108, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 28 references

[7]

Hidden markov model-based speech emotion recognition

Bj ¨orn Schuller, Gerhard Rigoll, and Manfred Lang. Hidden markov model-based speech emotion recognition. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Pro- ceedings.(ICASSP’03)., volume 2, pages II–1. IEEE, 2003

2003
[8]

Emotion recognition using a hierarchical binary decision tree approach

Chi-Chun Lee, Emily Mower, Carlos Busso, Sungbok Lee, and Shrikanth Narayanan. Emotion recognition using a hierarchical binary decision tree approach. Speech Communication , 53(9-10):1162–1171, 2011

2011
[9]

Affect recognition from lip articulations

Rizwan Sadiq and Engin Erzin. Affect recognition from lip articulations. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2017 IEEE International Conference on , pages 2432–2436. IEEE, 2017

2017
[10]

A ﬁrst look into a convolutional neural network for speech emotion detection

Dario Bertero and Pascale Fung. A ﬁrst look into a convolutional neural network for speech emotion detection. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) , pages 5115–5119. IEEE, 2017

2017
[11]

Speech emotion recognition from spectrograms with deep convo- lutional neural network

Abdul Malik Badshah, Jamil Ahmad, Nasir Rahim, and Sung Wook Baik. Speech emotion recognition from spectrograms with deep convo- lutional neural network. In 2017 international conference on platform technology and service (PlatCon) , pages 1–5. IEEE, 2017

2017
[12]

Multimodal speech emotion recognition using audio and text

Seunghyun Yoon, Seokhyun Byun, and Kyomin Jung. Multimodal speech emotion recognition using audio and text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04635, 2018

2018 arXiv
[13]

Speech to lip movement synthesis by hmm

Eli Yamamoto, Satoshi Nakamura, and Kiyohiro Shikano. Speech to lip movement synthesis by hmm. In Audio-Visual Speech Processing: Computational & Cognitive Science Approaches , 1997

1997
[14]

Comparison of phoneme and viseme based acoustic units for speech driven realistic lip animation

Elif Bozkurt, Cigdem Eroglu Erdem, Engin Erzin, Tanju Erdem, and Mehmet Ozkan. Comparison of phoneme and viseme based acoustic units for speech driven realistic lip animation. In2007 3DTV Conference, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2007

2007
[15]

Using viseme based acoustic models for speech driven lip synthesis

Ashish Verma, Nitendra Rajput, and L Venkata Subramaniam. Using viseme based acoustic models for speech driven lip synthesis. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings.(ICASSP’03)., volume 5, pages V–720. IEEE, 2003

2003
[16]

M. Brand. V oice puppetry. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques , pages 21–28. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1999

1999
[17]

Kakumanu and et al

P. Kakumanu and et al. Speech driven facial animation. In Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on Perceptive user interfaces , pages 1–5. ACM, 2001

2001
[18]

End-to- end speech-driven facial animation with temporal gans

Konstantinos V ougioukas, Stavros Petridis, and Maja Pantic. End-to- end speech-driven facial animation with temporal gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09313, 2018

2018 arXiv
[19]

A deep learning approach for generalized speech animation

Sarah Taylor, Taehwan Kim, Yisong Yue, Moshe Mahler, James Krahe, Anastasio Garcia Rodriguez, Jessica Hodgins, and Iain Matthews. A deep learning approach for generalized speech animation. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(4):93:1–93:11, July 2017

2017
[21]

Ravdess: The ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song

Steven R Livingstone, Katlyn Peck, and Frank A Russo. Ravdess: The ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song. In Annual meeting of the canadian society for brain, behaviour and cognitive science, pages 205–211, 2012

2012
[23]

Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database

Carlos Busso, Murtaza Bulut, Chi-Chun Lee, Abe Kazemzadeh, Emily Mower, Samuel Kim, Jeannette N Chang, Sungbok Lee, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database. Language resources and evaluation , 42(4):335, 2008

2008
[24]

Cooke, J

M. Cooke, J. Barker, S. Cunningham, and X. Shao. An audio-visual corpus for speech perception and automatic speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 120(5):2421–2424, 2006

2006
[25]

Garofolo, L.F

J.S. Garofolo, L.F. Lamel, W.M. Fisher, J.G. Fiscus, and D.S. Pallett. Darpa timit acoustic-phonetic continous speech corpus cd-rom. nist speech disc 1-1.1. NASA STI/Recon technical report n , 93, 1993

1993
[26]

D.E. King. Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(Jul):1755–1758, 2009

2009
[27]

C. Goodall. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B , 53(2), 1991

1991
[28]

Tensorﬂow: A system for large-scale machine learning

Mart ´ın Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, et al. Tensorﬂow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementat...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Multimodal speech driven facial shape animation using deep neural networks

Sasan Asadiabadi, Rizwan Sadiq, and Engin Erzin. Multimodal speech driven facial shape animation using deep neural networks. In 2018 Asia- Paciﬁc Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC) , 2018

work page 2018

[2] [20]

Speech-driven 3d facial animation with implicit emotional awareness: A deep learning approach

Hai Xuan Pham, Samuel Cheung, and Vladimir Pavlovic. Speech-driven 3d facial animation with implicit emotional awareness: A deep learning approach. In CVPR Workshops, pages 2328–2336, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [1]

Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks

Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 1097–1105, 2012

2012

[4] [2]

Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate

Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473, 2014

arXiv 2014

[5] [3]

Deep speech 2: End-to-end speech recognition in english and mandarin

Dario Amodei, Sundaram Ananthanarayanan, Rishita Anubhai, Jingliang Bai, Eric Battenberg, Carl Case, Jared Casper, Bryan Catanzaro, Qiang Cheng, Guoliang Chen, et al. Deep speech 2: End-to-end speech recognition in english and mandarin. In International conference on machine learning, pages 173–182, 2016

2016

[6] [4]

Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory

Hao Zhou, Minlie Huang, Tianyang Zhang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Bing Liu. Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 2018

work page 2018

[7] [5]

Au- tomatic dialogue generation with expressed emotions

Chenyang Huang, Osmar Zaiane, Amine Trabelsi, and Nouha Dziri. Au- tomatic dialogue generation with expressed emotions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), volume 2, pages 49–54, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [6]

Speech emotion recognition using support vector machine

Yixiong Pan, Peipei Shen, and Liping Shen. Speech emotion recognition using support vector machine. International Journal of Smart Home , 6(2):101–108, 2012

work page 2012