SETEAB: Multiscale approach with Squeeze-and-Excitation Temporal Enhanced Aware Block for Speech Emotion Recognition
Authors: Duy Vo, Kiet Anh Hoang, Hao Do
Organizations: Faculty of Information Technology, University of Science, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · UNEY, Switzerland
This paper proposes a novel lightweight multiscale architecture for speech emotion recognition (SER) with three key innovations. First, a depthwise convolution-based subsampling module is introduced to reduce model size and computation while preserving salient emotional cues. Second, a Squeeze-and-Excitation block is integrated to enhance channel-wise recalibration and improve representation robustness. Third, a new Temporal Enhanced Aware Block is designed to strengthen temporal dependency modeling and produce more discriminative emotion-aware features. The proposed model is explicitly designed to jointly improve compactness, recognition performance, and generalizability. Experiments on benchmark SER datasets show that our method achieves higher accuracy with reduced computational complexity, while also delivering stronger cross-corpus performance than most recent advanced networks for SER.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed SETEAB for speech emotion recognition with four key improvements: depthwise convolution subsampling, SE-Res2Block, the proposed Temporal Enhanced Aware Block (TEAB), and weighted bidirectional fusion (BiF).
Model
Comp. (M/G)
EMOVO
IEMOCAP
RAVDESS
CREMA-D
MELD
Avg
UA
F1
UA
F1
UA
F1
UA
F1
UA
F1
UA
F1
wav2vec 2.0 base [ 8 ]
∼ 95 / 33.53
31.07
27.24
58.27
57.83
54.33
53.99
61.95
61.75
20.06
20.04
45.14
44.17
TIM-Net [ 15 ]
∼ 0.12 / 0.05
21.94
15.71
54.91
52.57
50.67
49.84
66.00
65.68
17.60
15.37
42.22
39.83
MS-SENet [ 16 ]
∼ 0.15 / 0.13
22.11
13.77
55.48
54.07
54.62
53.77
65.10
64.74
17.55
14.73
42.97
40.22
SETEAB ( R=2 )
∼ 0.5 / 0.12
35.20
31.61
58.07
56.26
54.95
53.26
67.29
67.04
22.97
17.51
47.69
45.14
SETEAB ( R=4 )
∼ 0.4 / 0.06
30.27
24.94
58.94
57.12
59.57
59.64
66.73
66.55
22.54
17.89
47.61
45.23
Table 1: Comparison of UA and F1 (%) across five SER benchmarks. Model complexity is reported as the number of parameters(M) and FLOPs(G), computed on 5-second input utterances. The best and second-best results in each column are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively. R denotes the subsampling rate. This convention is followed in all subsequent tables.
Figure 2: Comparison of performance–efficiency trade-off in terms of FLOPs(G) and UA% across baseline and our models.
Setting
FLOPs(G)
UAavg
F1avg
DW-Sub ( R=2 ) + BiF + SE-Res2
0.12
47.69
45.14
DW-Sub ( R=4 ) + BiF + SE-Res2
0.06
47.61
45.23
BiF
0.14
45.89
43.68
BiF + SE-Res2
0.16
46.22
43.20
Bi-DW-Sub + BiF + SE-Res2
0.17
46.62
43.96
Table 2: Ablation study of the proposed model variants on SER datasets, reported in terms of average UA (%) and F1 (%).
Test
Training Set
wav2vec 2.0 base
SETEAB (ours)
I
M
R
S
I
M
R
S
I
\
29.78
18.25
28.84
\
47.08
37.50
30.42
M
22.50
\
31.39
35.24
35.00
\
27.08
30.00
R
27.15
23.20
\
33.77
48.33
44.17
\
47.08
S
31.34
29.19
21.36
\
44.17
27.50
32.08
\
Table 3: Cross-dataset evaluation (WA%) across four datasets (IEMOCAP (I), MELD (M), RAVDESS (R), SAVEE (S)).
Model name
WA
wav2vec 2.0 base
27.67 ± 5.27
TIM-Net
32.22 ± 5.18
MS-SENet
34.31 ± 4.35
SETEAB (ours)
37.53 ± 8.20
Table 4: Overall cross-dataset WA (%) of different models, reported as mean ± standard deviation.