MUPAE: Multimodal Unified Perception with Asymmetric Attention for Emotion Assessment
Organizations: Honda Research Institute Japan, Wako City, Japan
Abstract
Automatic emotion assessment can benefit from combining neural and behavioral signals, but many multimodal approaches rely on separate, modality-specific feature-extraction pipelines before fusion. This paper presents MUPA\textsuperscript{2}E, a unified perception framework that processes facial video and electroencephalography (EEG) through a single shared asymmetric-attention backbone. Facial video is represented through axis-folded frame tokens, while EEG is processed either as a raw multichannel waveform or projected into the spatial domain for multimodal fusion. The framework is evaluated on the DMER dataset under a stratified subject-independent protocol, comparing unimodal video, unimodal EEG, and fused video--EEG configurations with per-channel and merged EEG projections. Using the original recordings, with shorter trials zero-padded to match the longest duration, merged fusion at stride~ achieves the highest validation performance and a test accuracy of . Further analysis revealed that recording duration is unevenly distributed across the affective classes, making the padding pattern a potential classification cue. Controlling for this factor by cropping all recordings to a common duration of seconds yielded a test accuracy of , providing a stricter duration-controlled assessment of the framework in which differences in recording length are removed as a potential classification cue. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of processing structurally different neural and visual signals within a compact unified architecture while highlighting the importance of controlling duration-related cues in affective datasets.
Figures & tables
| Method/Parameter | Value |
| Video augmentations | |
| AugMix | |
| TrivialAugment | |
| Center Crop | , |
| Noise | , |
| Masking-1 | , 3 blocks |
| Split | Difficulty Group | |||
| Q1 – Hard | Q2 – Med-Hard | Q3 – Med-Easy | Q4 – Easy | |
| Training (48) | 8, 12, 20, 25, 36, 37, 43, 45, 56, 60, 66, 71 | 14, 30, 33, 35, 39, 50, 51, 53, 55, 65, 72, 73 | 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 23, 32, 52, 54, 59, 70, 78 | 11, 24, 26, 34, 40, 42, 49, 61, 63, 64, 68, 76 |
| Validation (12) | 19, 48, 58 | 22, 41, 79 | 29, 47, 77 | 62, 67, 69 |
| Testing (13) | 28, 74, 75, 80 | 21, 38, 57 | 1, 2, 7 | 18, 44, 46 |
| Modality | Stride | Performance | |||
| Accuracy | Precision | F1 | Average | ||
| Video | 10 | 68.75 | 69.05 | 68.36 | 68.72 |
| Video | 15 | 69.27 | 69.63 | 69.13 | 69.34 |
| Video | 20 | 68.75 | 69.05 | 68.63 | 68.81 |
| Video | 30 | 69.27 | 69.53 | 69.17 | 69.32 |
| EEG | 1 | 69.79 | 69.87 | 69.76 | 69.81 |
| Fusion | Stride | Performance | |||
| Accuracy | Precision | F1 | Average | ||
| Per-channel | 10 | 68.75 | 69.05 | 68.63 | 68.81 |
| Per-channel | 15 | 69.27 | 69.53 | 69.17 | 69.32 |
| Per-channel | 20 | 69.27 | 69.75 | 69.08 | 69.37 |
| Per-channel | 30 | 68.85 | 69.05 | 68.63 | 68.84 |
| Merged | 10 | 68.75 | 69.05 | 68.63 | 68.81 |
| Fusion | Stride | Computational Cost | Inference Cost | Accuracy | ||
| Params (M) | GFLOPs | Latency (ms) GPU | Samples/s GPU | |||
| Merged | 30 | 1.89 | 3.13 | 6.55 | 152.65 | 70.07 |
| Study | Modality | Validation Protocol | Samples | Accuracy |
| Ours | Video+EEG | Hold-out | Original | 70.07 |
| Ours | Video+EEG | Hold-out | Cropped | 62.71 |
| Ours | Video+EEG | LOSO | Cropped | 76.37 |
| [ 10 ] | EEG | Hold-out | Cropped | 65.22 |