Do Depressive Facial Patterns Transfer Across Cultures and Contexts? Evidence from a German RCT and E-DAIC
Organizations: Dept. AIBE, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg Munich Center for Machine Learning Germany · Dept. of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg Germany · Dept. of Computer Science, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg Germany · Dept. AIBE, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg Chair of AI-supported Therapy Decisions, LMU München Helmholtz Zentrum München Munich Center for Machine Learning Germany
Abstract
Automated assessment of depression from facial dynamics holds promise for scalable mental health monitoring, yet cross-corpus generalization of learned biomarkers remains an open challenge. We present a systematic bidirectional transfer study pairing the EmpkinS-EKSpression randomized controlled trial (RCT; N = 256, SCID-5-CV diagnoses) with the Extended Distress Analysis Interview Corpus (E-DAIC; N = 275, semi-structured clinical interviews), predicting depression severity and binary diagnostic status from facial action units, head pose, and gaze. Cross-corpus binary classification proves more robust than continuous PHQ-8 severity regression, with forward transfer achieving AUC = 0.70. Regression transfer is governed by functional context alignment: passive observation phases yield the most transferable models, while active emotion regulation phases elicit stronger within-corpus signals. These findings establish functional context alignment as the primary determinant of cross-corpus generalization, with passive elicitation contexts offering the best trade-off between within-corpus sensitivity and cross-corpus robustness.
Figures & tables
| Characteristic | MDD ( ) | MDD ( ) | |
| Demographics | |||
| Age, mean ± SD | 36.7 ± 16.6 | 33.6 ± 13.4 | 0.622 |
| 18–25 | 49 (38.3%) | 44 (34.4%) | |
| 26–35 | 27 (21.1%) | 45 (35.2%) | |
| 36 | 52 (40.6%) | 39 (30.5%) | |
| Sex (F / M / Diverse) | 88 / 39 / 1 | 89 / 36 / 3 | 0.621 |
| Characteristic | MDD ( ) | MDD ( ) | |
| Demographics | |||
| Age, mean ± SD | 41.1 ± 13.0 | 41.6 ± 11.8 | 0.697 |
| 18–25 | 29 (13.9%) | 6 (9.1%) | |
| 26–35 | 55 (26.3%) | 19 (28.8%) | |
| 36 | 125 (59.8%) | 41 (62.1%) | |
| Sex (F / M / Unknown) | 74 / 134 / 1 | 31 / 35 / 0 | 0.130 |
| AFE | CR+AFE | CR | SHAM | All Conditions | ||||||
| Target / Phase | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE |
| PHQ-8 | ||||||||||
| Preparatory | 0.31 0.22 | 5.34 1.51 | 0.17 0.11 | 5.03 0.60 | 0.00 0.20 | 5.83 1.19 | 0.28 0.17 | 4.85 0.98 | 0.04 0.15 | 5.11 0.65 |
| Mood Induction | 0.01 0.08 | 7.34 2.45 | 0.02 0.15 | 5.54 1.30 | 0.09 0.24 | 5.18 1.17 | 0.03 0.12 | 6.05 1.50 | 0.14 0.05 | 5.10 0.27 |
| Negative Training | 0.19 0.18 | 5.14 0.68 | 0.09 0.26 | 4.86 1.25 | 0.20 0.20 | 5.11 0.99 | 0.26 0.16 | 5.03 0.96 | 0.13 0.10 | 5.26 0.60 |
| Positive Training | 0.26 0.33 | 5.19 1.48 | 0.04 0.14 | 5.93 0.96 | 0.18 0.24 | 5.90 1.29 | 0.24 0.23 | 4.87 1.05 | 0.09 0.05 | 5.08 0.49 |
| Preparatory phase | Best within-corpus phase per condition | |||||||||||||
| Prep./AFE | Prep./SHAM | Prep./All | Pos./AFE | Neg./CR+AFE | Neg./CR | Neg./SHAM | ||||||||
| CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE | |
| Cross-corpus | ||||||||||||||
| EmpkinS E-DAIC | 0.03 | 6.13 | 0.00 | 5.83 | 0.00 | 7.18 | 0.03 | 6.86 | 0.13 | 5.62 | 0.15 | 5.77 | 0.10 | 5.49 |
| EmpkinS E-DAIC | 0.01 | 6.98 | 0.08 | 5.40 | 0.03 | 9.59 | 0.04 | 8.76 | 0.03 | 8.75 | 0.21 | 8.87 | 0.03 | 6.27 |
| E-DAIC EmpkinS | 0.14 | 6.83 | 0.26 | 5.50 | 0.10 | 4.77 | 0.10 | 7.25 | 0.25 | 5.40 | 0.04 | 5.31 | 0.14 | 5.06 |
| Preparatory phase | Best within-corpus phase per condition | |||||||||||||
| Prep./AFE | Prep./SHAM | Prep./All | Pos./AFE | Neg./CR+AFE | Neg./CR | Neg./SHAM | ||||||||
| AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | AUC | F1 M | |
| Setting 1 – EmpkinS † : SCID labels vs. E-DAIC: PHQ-8 labels | ||||||||||||||
| EmpkinS all E-DAIC | 0.62 | 0.30 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.28 | 0.67 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.66 | 0.41 |
| EmpkinS E-DAIC | 0.59 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.48 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.59 | 0.41 |
| E-DAIC EmpkinS | 0.88 | 0.33 | 0.79 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.69 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.58 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Search grid |
|---|---|
| Ridge | alpha |
| Lasso | alpha ; max_iter=5000 |
| ElasticNet | alpha , l1_ratio ; max_iter=5000 |
| SVR (RBF) | C , gamma , epsilon |
| -NN | n_neighbors |
| Random Forest | n_estimators , max_features , min_samples_leaf |
| Model | Search grid |
|---|---|
| Logistic Regression | C |
| SVC (RBF) | C , gamma |
| Random Forest | n_estimators , max_features , min_samples_leaf |
| Extra Trees | n_estimators , max_features |
| Gradient Boosting | n_estimators , learning_rate , max_depth |
| XGBoost | n_estimators , learning_rate , max_depth |