Organizations: College of Intelligent Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Key Lab of Intelligent Information Processing, College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · School of Data Science and Engineering, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
The human brain constructs emotional percepts not by processing facial expressions in isolation, but through a dynamic, hierarchical integration of sensory input with semantic and contextual knowledge. However, existing vision-based dynamic emotion modeling approaches often neglect emotion perception and cognitive theories. To bridge this gap between machine and human emotion perception, we propose cognition-inspired Dual-stream Semantic Enhancement (DuSE). Our model instantiates a dual-stream cognitive architecture. The first stream, a Hierarchical Temporal Prompt Cluster (HTPC), operationalizes the cognitive priming effect. It simulates how linguistic cues pre-sensitize neural pathways, modulating the processing of incoming visual stimuli by aligning textual semantics with fine-grained temporal features of facial dynamics. The second stream, a Latent Semantic Emotion Aggregator (LSEA), computationally models the knowledge integration process, akin to the mechanism described by the Conceptual Act Theory. It aggregates sensory inputs and synthesizes them with learned conceptual knowledge, reflecting the role of the hippocampus and default mode network in constructing a coherent emotional experience. By explicitly modeling these neuro-cognitive mechanisms, DuSE provides a more neurally plausible and robust framework for dynamic facial expression recognition (DFER). Extensive experiments on challenging in-the-wild benchmarks validate our cognition-centric approach, demonstrating that emulating the brain's strategies for emotion processing yields state-of-the-art performance and enhances model interpretability.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The priming effect and knowledge integration mechanisms in human emotional cognition inspire us to explore the progressive complementary relationship between prompts and knowledge in visual language sentiment modeling.
Fig. 2: Supervision from natural language can effectively alleviate the problem of difficulty in classifying expressions with inter-class similarities. Our method aims to bridge the gap between general image-based pre-training models and specialized recognition tasks based on dynamic expression sequences.
Fig. 3: Overall architecture of DuSE . (a) shows the overall methodological framework. (b) shows HTPC, which contributes to the cross-modal prompt streaming. (c) shows LSEA, which contributes to cross-domain knowledge streaming.
Method
Publication
DFEW
FERV39k
UAR
WAR
UAR
WAR
C3D [ 22 ]
CVPR’15
42.74
53.54
22.68
31.69
P3D [ 32 ]
ICCV’17
43.97
54.47
23.20
33.39
I3D-RGB [ 33 ]
ICCV’17
43.40
54.27
30.17
38.78
3D ResNet18 [ 34 ]
CVPR’18
46.52
58.27
26.67
37.57
EC-STFL [ 20 ]
MM’20
45.35
56.51
-
-
TABLE I: Comparative results (%). Our proposed DuSE performs well on both datasets for 7-class classification. Best results are in bold and second-best results are underlined.
Method
Publication
Happy
Sad
Neutral
Angry
Surprise
Disgust
Fear
UAR
WAR
C3D [ 22 ]
CVPR’15
75.17
39.49
55.11
62.49
45.00
1.38
20.51
42.74
53.54
I3D-RGB [ 33 ]
CVPR’17
78.61
44.19
56.69
55.87
45.88
2.07
20.51
43.40
54.27
P3D [ 32 ]
ICCV’17
74.85
43.40
54.18
60.42
50.99
0.69
23.28
43.97
54.47
3D ResNet18 [ 34 ]
CVPR’18
76.32
50.21
64.18
62.85
47.52
0.00
24.56
46.52
58.27
EC-STFL [ 20 ]
MM’20
79.18
49.05
57.85
60.98
46.15
2.76
21.51
45.35
56.51
Former-DFER [ 35 ]
MM’21
84.05
62.57
67.52
70.03
56.43
3.45
31.78
53.69
65.70
TABLE II: Comparative results (%) across different methods on various emotion categories in DFEW. Best results are in bold and second-best results are underlined.
Fig. 4: Global and category-specific t-SNE visualization of DuSE on DFEW-fold5. The clustering results show that DuSE has a significant enhancement effect.
Fig. 5: Confusion matrices of the DuSE on DFEW and FERV39k.
HTPC
LSEA
DFEW
FERV39k
UAR
WAR
UAR
WAR
×
×
55.64
66.80
33.74
46.26
×
✓
58.86
70.28
35.77
47.85
✓
×
60.27
71.83
36.53
48.80
✓
✓
64.88
75.36
43.39
53.05
TABLE III: Comparative results (%) of the inter-module ablation experiments.
Pre-trained model
Strategy
DFEW
FERV39k
(parameters-frozen)
UAR
WAR
UAR
WAR
CLIP ViT-B/32
Shallow
49.95
61.35
33.47
44.92
Normal
53.22
64.70
35.02
46.87
Deep
57.75
68.76
36.93
48.54
CLIP ViT-B/16
Shallow
55.27
65.97
35.14
46.13
Normal
56.84
68.15
37.32
48.05
TABLE IV: Comparative results (%) of the intra-module ablation experiments of HTPC (cross-modal prompt streaming).
Hyperparameter
Value
DFEW
FERV39k
UAR
WAR
UAR
WAR
N
2
64.37
74.92
43.16
52.71
4
64.88
75.36
43.39
53.05
6
64.21
74.83
42.94
52.08
β
0.3
61.26
71.82
38.55
48.73
0.5
62.01
73.56
40.98
50.09
TABLE V: Comparative results (%) of the hyperparameter ablation experiments of LSEA (cross-domain knowledge streaming).
Fig. 6: t-SNE visualization on the DFEW 5-fold dataset.
Fig. 7: Deployment modes and implementation results, which are also mentioned in the demo video.