Rupp Lydia Helene, Kumar Akash, Sadeghi Misha, Schindler-Gmelch Lena, Keinert Marie, Eskofier Bjoern M, Berking Matthias
Lehrstuhl für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Machine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Faculty of Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Front Digit Health. 2025 Apr 30;7:1578917. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1578917. eCollection 2025.
The detrimental consequences of stress highlight the need for precise stress detection, as this offers a window for timely intervention. However, both objective and subjective measurements suffer from validity limitations. Contactless sensing technologies using machine learning methods present a potential alternative and could be used to estimate stress from externally visible physiological changes, such as emotional facial expressions. Although previous studies were able to classify stress from emotional expressions with accuracies of up to 88.32%, most works employed a classification approach and relied on data from contexts where stress was induced. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to clarify whether stress can be detected from facial expressions of six basic emotions (anxiety, anger, disgust, sadness, joy, love) and relaxation using a prediction approach.
To attain this goal, we analyzed video recordings of facial emotional expressions collected from n = 69 participants in a secondary analysis of a dataset from an interventional study. We aimed to explore associations with stress (assessed by the PSS-10 and a one-item stress measure).
Comparing two regression machine learning models [Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost], we found that facial emotional expressions were promising indicators of stress scores, with model fit being best when data from all six emotional facial expressions was used to train the model (one-item stress measure: MSE (XGB) = 2.31, MAE (XGB) = 1.32, MSE (RF) = 3.86, MAE (RF) = 1.69; PSS-10: MSE (XGB) = 25.65, MAE (XGB) = 4.16, MSE (RF) = 26.32, MAE (RF) = 4.14). XGBoost showed to be more reliable for prediction, with lower error for both training and test data.
The findings provide further evidence that non-invasive video recordings can complement standard objective and subjective markers of stress.
压力的有害后果凸显了精确压力检测的必要性,因为这为及时干预提供了一个窗口。然而,客观测量和主观测量都存在效度限制。使用机器学习方法的非接触式传感技术提供了一种潜在的替代方案,可用于从外部可见的生理变化(如情绪性面部表情)来估计压力。尽管先前的研究能够以高达88.32%的准确率从情绪表情中分类出压力,但大多数研究采用的是分类方法,且依赖于诱导压力的情境数据。因此,本研究的主要目的是使用预测方法来阐明是否可以从六种基本情绪(焦虑、愤怒、厌恶、悲伤、喜悦、爱)的面部表情以及放松状态中检测出压力。
为实现这一目标,我们在一项干预研究数据集的二次分析中,分析了从n = 69名参与者收集的面部情绪表情视频记录。我们旨在探索与压力的关联(通过PSS - 10和一项压力单项测量进行评估)。
比较两种回归机器学习模型[随机森林(RF)和XGBoost],我们发现面部情绪表情是压力得分的有前景的指标,当使用所有六种情绪性面部表情的数据来训练模型时,模型拟合最佳(压力单项测量:XGB的均方误差(MSE)= 2.31,平均绝对误差(MAE)= 1.32,RF的MSE = 3.86,MAE = 1.69;PSS - 10:XGB的MSE = 25.65,MAE = 4.16,RF的MSE = 26.32,MAE = 4.14)。XGBoost在预测方面显示出更可靠,训练数据和测试数据的误差都更低。
这些发现进一步证明了非侵入性视频记录可以补充压力的标准客观和主观指标。