Emotion Across Speech and Faces: Shared Affective Mechanisms in Multimodal Foundation Models
Authors: Xiutian Zhao, Luqi Sun, Björn Schuller, Berrak Sisman
Organizations: Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, USA · Group on Language, Audio & Music (GLAM), Imperial College London, UK
Modern multimodal foundation models (MFMs) have made rapid progress on tasks requiring integrated perception across speech, vision, and language, including emotion recognition. However, it remains unclear whether they recognize speech and facial emotion through shared affective functional units or modality-specific pathways. We explore emotion-sensitive neurons (ESNs), sparse decoder neurons selectively associated with emotion categories, in three MFMs: Gemma-4-12B-it, MiniCPM-o-4.5, and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B. Using speech emotion recognition and facial expression recognition as complementary probes, we identify acoustic and visual ESNs. Visual ESNs are causally meaningful: deactivating them selectively impairs recognition of the associated facial emotion, whereas steering their activations selectively enhances recognition of that emotion relative to other emotion categories. Acoustic and visual ESNs further show emotion-matched overlap and similar layer-wise distributions, indicating partial structural alignment between affective representations across speech and faces. Finally, cross-modal interventions reveal bidirectional causal transfer: ESNs identified from one modality produce emotion-specific effects when applied to the other. Our findings provide one of the first cross-modality activation-level analyses of affective functional units in MFMs, suggesting that speech and facial emotion recognition partially converge onto sparse decoder-level components that can be localized and manipulated without training.
Figures & tables
Evaluation Setting
MFM
Intervention
Unmasked
Random ( Δ )
Self-Emotion ( Δ )
Avg. Cross-Emotion ( Δ )
Self-Cross Gap
Gemma-4-
Deactivation ↓
60.47
60.19 (-0.28)
34.67 (-25.80)
63.00 (+2.53)
-28.33
12B-it
Steering ↑
60.13 (-0.34)
76.93 (+16.46)
55.92 (-4.55)
+21.01
FER
MiniCPM-
Deactivation ↓
64.00
64.13 (+0.13)
53.67 (-10.33)
64.83 (+0.83)
-11.16
with V-ESN masks
o-4.5
Steering ↑
63.99 (-0.01)
68.07 (+4.07)
63.27 (-0.73)
+4.80
Qwen2.5-
Deactivation ↓
48.60
47.53 (-1.07)
38.20 (-10.40)
48.85 (+0.25)
-10.65
Omni-7B
Steering ↑
47.76 (-0.84)
51.60 (+3.00)
47.72 (-0.88)
+3.88
TABLE I : Mono-modal causal effects of ESN interventions. V-ESN masks are identified and evaluated on FER; A-ESN masks are identified and evaluated on SER. Columns report the unmasked UAR, random-mask controls, matched-emotion performance, average non-matched-emotion performance, and the Self-Cross Gap, as defined in Section IV-D . Δ values indicate the changes relative to the unmasked UAR. Arrows ( ↓ , ↑ ) indicate the expected direction of the matched-emotion performance change.
Fig. 1 : Emotion-specific FER effects of V-ESN interventions. Heatmaps report changes in FER accuracy after applying FER-derived V-ESN masks. Rows denote the mask emotion and columns denote the FER test-subset emotion; “Random” gives same-size random-mask controls. Diagonal cells correspond to matched mask–test emotion pairs.
Fig. 2 : Layer-wise distribution of selected ESNs (ConAct-selected, r=0.5% ). Panels show FER-derived V-ESNs and SER-derived A-ESNs for each model; rows denote decoder MLP layers and columns denote emotions. Colors indicate neuron counts on a logarithmic scale. ESNs are sparse but span multiple layers, with stronger concentration in middle and later layers.
Fig. 3 : Cross-modal overlap between FER-derived V-ESNs and SER-derived A-ESNs. Each heatmap reports Jaccard similarity coefficient across emotion-specific neuron sets; rows denote FER emotions, columns denote SER emotions, and darker cells indicate larger overlap.
Evaluation Setting
MFM
Intervention
Unmasked
Random ( Δ )
Self-Emotion ( Δ )
Avg. Cross-Emotion ( Δ )
Self-Cross Gap
Gemma-4-
Deactivation ↓
60.47
60.19 (-0.28)
42.40 (-18.07)
61.33 (+0.86)
-18.93
12B-it
Steering ↑
60.13 (-0.34)
67.40 (+6.93)
59.12 (-1.35)
+8.28
FER
MiniCPM-
Deactivation ↓
64.00
64.13 (+0.13)
58.67 (-5.33)
63.73 (-0.27)
-5.06
with A-ESN masks
o-4.5
Steering ↑
63.99 (-0.01)
65.80 (+1.80)
63.72 (-0.28)
+2.08
Qwen2.5-
Deactivation ↓
48.60
47.53 (-1.07)
41.40 (-7.20)
47.87 (-0.73)
-6.47
Omni-7B
Steering ↑
47.76 (-0.84)
51.80 (+3.20)
47.40 (-1.20)
+4.40
TABLE II : Cross-modal causal effects of ESN interventions. SER-derived A-ESN masks are applied during FER, and FER-derived V-ESN masks are applied during SER. Columns follow Table I .
Fig. 4 : Emotion-specific effects of cross-modal ESN transfer for MiniCPM-o-4.5. Heatmaps report changes in recognition accuracy when ESN masks identified from one modality are applied to the other modality. Panels (a,b) apply SER-derived A-ESN masks during FER, and panels (c,d) apply FER-derived V-ESN masks during SER.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
SER
FER
Dataset
MSP-Podcast
AffectNet
Anger
36260
25382
Fear
1943
6878
Happiness
58684
134915
Neutral
79117
75374
Sadness
24629
25259
Appendix
TABLE III : Dataset statistics showing utterance/images counts per emotion.
Models
Hugging Face Identifier
License
Gemma-4-12B-it
https://huggingface.co/google/Gemma-4-12B-it
Apache License 2.0
MiniCPM-o-4.5
https://huggingface.co/openbmb/MiniCPM-o-4_5
Apache License 2.0
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Apache License 2.0
Appendix
TABLE IV : Sources and licenses for the three evaluated MFMs.
Emotion is central to human communication, and its expression varies across languages. Large audio-language models (LALMs) achieve strong performance on multilingual speech tasks, yet it remains unclear whether they encode emotion through language-specific correlations or language-agnostic representations. We present the first neuron-level interpretability study of this question. We define Multilingual Emotion Neurons (MLENs) as functional units exhibiting stable emotional selectivity and aligned causal effects across languages, and introduce Consistency-Regularized Fusion (CR-Fusion) to identify them. Across four modern LALMs and 12 typologically diverse languages, emotion-sensitive neurons identified independently per language show minimal overlap, and additional monolingual identification data saturates quickly without isolating more transferable units, motivating identification from pooled cross-lingual evidence. Causal interventions demonstrate that MLENs identified by CR-Fusion provide more precise and transferable affective control than monolingual neuron sets in both zero-shot and low-resource settings. Leave-one-out ablations further reveal asymmetric transfer: individual identification languages, including low-resource ones, contribute non-redundant evidence, while several low-resource languages benefit most from the resulting cross-lingual transfer. Together, our findings provide the first causal, neuron-level account of how LALMs encode emotion across languages, and establish multilingual neuron identification as an effective mechanism for understanding cross-lingual affective behavior.
Xiutian Zhao, Philipp Koehn, Björn Schuller +1
Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, USA · Group on Language, Audio & Music (GLAM), Imperial College London, UK
Multimodal emotion recognition (MER) increasingly pairs EEG with speech, treating internal neural signals and external vocal expression as informative views of affect. In practice, naive fusion underperforms the stronger single modality, because EEG artifacts inject noise that corrupts the shared representation. We introduce EmoSpeechBrain, a multimodal framework built on the insight that noise suppression is a precondition for effective fusion. Its EEG encoder uses differential attention, taking the difference between two attention maps to cancel shared noise and isolate discriminative neural activity. An attention-based gating adapter aligns both modalities in a shared space and weights each one's contribution to the prediction. On two datasets - PME4 and EAV, EmoSpeechBrain improves MER accuracy by up to 12.9% over other state-of-the-art (SOTA) EEG encoders, and surpasses unimodal speech and EEG baselines by up to 13.1% and 23.1%. These results show that once EEG noise is suppressed, fusion delivers gains that naive combination cannot.
Philip H. Lee, Shreeram Suresh Chandra, John H. L. Hansen
Independent Researcher, USA · Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · Center for Robust Speech Systems (CRSS), University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
Multimodal emotion recognition on CMU-MOSEI faces an extreme imbalance as Happy accounts for 65.9% of samples while three Ekman categories collectively represent under 7%, causing standard fusion models to maximize accuracy by ignoring minority emotions entirely. We present Affect-Diff, a Causal-Diffusion Bridge that addresses this through three jointly trained mechanisms: a NOTEARS-learned causal graph that re-weights modality contributions before fusion, a beta-VAE bottleneck for regularized latent compression, and a stop-gradiented 1D DDPM prior that structures the latent space against majority-class collapse. On 3,292 aligned CMU-MOSEI samples, Affect-Diff achieves validation balanced accuracy 0.384, an 18% relative improvement over the strongest baseline (TETFN: 0.324), while all evaluated baselines produce zero F1 on Fear, Disgust, and Surprise. Ablation studies confirm independent, non-redundant contributions from the diffusion prior (-24% without it) and causal graph (-13%). Notably, only the deterministic-encoder variant detects all six emotion classes, revealing KL regularization strength as a direct lever for minority-class sensitivity.
Ankit Sanjyal
Department of Computer Science – Data Science Fordham University New York, USA