Optimal processing of surface facial EMG to identify emotional expressions: A data-driven approach
-
Published:2024-05-21
Issue:7
Volume:56
Page:7331-7344
-
ISSN:1554-3528
-
Container-title:Behavior Research Methods
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Behav Res
Author:
Rutkowska J. M.,Ghilardi T.,Vacaru S. V.,van Schaik J. E.,Meyer M.,Hunnius S.,Oostenveld R.
Abstract
AbstractSurface facial electromyography (EMG) is commonly used to detect emotions from subtle facial expressions. Although there are established procedures for collecting EMG data and some aspects of their processing, there is little agreement among researchers about the optimal way to process the EMG signal, so that the study-unrelated variability (noise) is removed, and the emotion-related variability is best detected. The aim of the current paper was to establish an optimal processing pipeline for EMG data for identifying emotional expressions in facial muscles. We identified the most common processing steps from existing literature and created 72 processing pipelines that represented all the different processing choices. We applied these pipelines to a previously published dataset from a facial mimicry experiment, where 100 adult participants observed happy and sad facial expressions, whilst the activity of their facial muscles, zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii, was recorded with EMG. We used a resampling approach and subsets of the original data to investigate the effect and robustness of different processing choices on the performance of a logistic regression model that predicted the mimicked emotion (happy/sad) from the EMG signal. In addition, we used a random forest model to identify the most important processing steps for the sensitivity of the logistic regression model. Three processing steps were found to be most impactful: baseline correction, standardisation within muscles, and standardisation within subjects. The chosen feature of interest and the signal averaging had little influence on the sensitivity to the effect. We recommend an optimal processing pipeline, share our code and data, and provide a step-by-step walkthrough for researchers.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Addabbo, M., Vacaru, S. V., Meyer, M., & Hunnius, S. (2020). ‘Something in the way you move’: Infants are sensitive to emotions conveyed in action kinematics. Developmental Science, 23(1), e12873. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12873 2. Altimari, L., Dantas, J. L., Bigliassi, M., Kanthack, T., Moraes, A., & Abrao, T. (2012). Influence of different strategies of treatment muscle contraction and relaxation phases on EMG signal processing and analysis during cyclic exercise. In G. R. Naik (Ed.), Computational Intelligence in Electromyography Analysis. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/50599 3. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., Fiedler, S., Funder, D. C., Kliegl, R., Nosek, B. A., Perugini, M., Roberts, B. W., Schmitt, M., van Aken, M. A. G., Weber, H., & Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919 4. Besomi, M., Hodges, P. W., Clancy, E. A., Van Dieën, J., Hug, F., Lowery, M., Merletti, R., Søgaard, K., Wrigley, T., Besier, T., Carson, R. G., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Enoka, R. M., Falla, D., Farina, D., Gandevia, S., Holobar, A., Kiernan, M. C., McGill, K., & Tucker, K. (2020). Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 53, 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438 5. Bradley, A. P. (1997). The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition, 30(7), 1145–1159.
|
|