2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-008-0225-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A face emotion tree structure representation with probabilistic recursive neural network modeling

Abstract: This paper describes a novel structural approach to recognize the human facial features for emotion recognition. Conventionally, features extracted from facial images are represented by relatively poor representations, such as arrays or sequences, with a static data structure.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When six emotions are used, the CRR of the proposed approach is 9.73% and 15.88% higher than those in [42] and [43] respectively on the JAFFE database, as well as 1.88% higher than that obtained using LBP features in [26] on the CK database. The result of the proposed approach on the CK database is 0.62% lower than the result obtained using the boosted-LBP features in [26] and 1.39% lower than the result in [46]. However, the work [26] normalized the face based on manually labeled eye locations and improved the results by optimizing the SVM parameters.…”
Section: Perforamnce Under Registration Errorsmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When six emotions are used, the CRR of the proposed approach is 9.73% and 15.88% higher than those in [42] and [43] respectively on the JAFFE database, as well as 1.88% higher than that obtained using LBP features in [26] on the CK database. The result of the proposed approach on the CK database is 0.62% lower than the result obtained using the boosted-LBP features in [26] and 1.39% lower than the result in [46]. However, the work [26] normalized the face based on manually labeled eye locations and improved the results by optimizing the SVM parameters.…”
Section: Perforamnce Under Registration Errorsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The recognition results in [41] were obtained by removing two JAFFE images named "KR.SR3.79" and "NA.SU1.79". As shown in table 7, the proposed approach outperforms all nine benchmarked approaches ( [23], [26], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) when the JAFFE database is used, and three of four benchmarked approaches ( [20], [21], [26], [46]) when the CK database is used. When six emotions are used, the CRR of the proposed approach is 9.73% and 15.88% higher than those in [42] and [43] respectively on the JAFFE database, as well as 1.88% higher than that obtained using LBP features in [26] on the CK database.…”
Section: Perforamnce Under Registration Errorsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, the approach in [2] normalizes facial images based on manually-labeled eye locations, while the proposed approach is only based on rough face location. The result using CK is 1.39% lower than the result in [8]. But the approach in [8] obtains the result based on 5-fold cross validation and 5 emotions, therefore, it uses more training images to classify less emotions compared to our approach.…”
Section: Compar Ison With State-of-the-ar T Per For Mancementioning
confidence: 76%
“…The result using CK is 1.39% lower than the result in [8]. But the approach in [8] obtains the result based on 5-fold cross validation and 5 emotions, therefore, it uses more training images to classify less emotions compared to our approach. …”
Section: Compar Ison With State-of-the-ar T Per For Mancementioning
confidence: 76%
“…To achieve sufficient correspondence when the probe and gallery images are not in the same pose and expression, we use face components instead of holistic features. Four typical key points on faces are manually marked to guide the partition [58], i.e., center of two eyes, nose tip, and mouth center, as shown in Fig. 6.…”
Section: B Results On Buaa-visnir Face Database 1) Database Descriptmentioning
confidence: 99%