Deep Learning for Emotion Detection in Classroom Environment

Abstract

Stress has emerged as a critical factor influencing student academic performance, classroom participation, and overall emotional well-being. Early identification of stress is essential for implementing adaptive learning strategies and ensuring timely intervention to improve both mental health and educational outcomes. Conventional assessment approaches, such as self-report questionnaires, observational analysis, and psychological surveys, often lack scalability, objectivity, and the ability to capture real-time variations in student behaviour. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning, have introduced powerful tools capable of processing multimodal data—including physiological signals, facial expressions, and speech features—to achieve more accurate and dynamic stress detection. This review provides an in-depth analysis of deep learning models applied to classroom stress detection. The discussion covers theoretical models of stress, relevant biomarkers, traditional assessment methods, and modern architectures such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models, and Transformer frameworks. Furthermore, multimodal fusion strategies, performance evaluation techniques, and real-time classroom applications are examined. The paper also highlights challenges related to data privacy, scalability, and ethical considerations, while outlining future directions with emphasis on explainable AI and integration into smart classroom systems.

Introduction

1. Stress in Education

• Stress is prevalent among students and significantly affects performance, motivation, memory, decision-making, and engagement.

• Timely detection is crucial for applying adaptive teaching and providing psychological support.

• Traditional methods (e.g., self-reports, teacher observations) are subjective and not suitable for real-time monitoring.

2. Deep Learning as a Solution

• Deep learning models can process complex, multimodal data (e.g., biosignals, voice, facial expressions) for automated and objective stress detection.

• Architectures like CNNs, RNNs, CNN-LSTMs, and Transformers have improved accuracy, real-time capabilities, and multimodal fusion.

• Applications are now shifting towards classroom environments for real-time, non-intrusive stress monitoring.

3. Theoretical Foundations

• Psychological Model: The Transactional Model by Lazarus emphasizes cognitive appraisal—how individuals perceive and react to challenges.

• Physiological Model: Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome outlines stress in three stages—alarm, resistance, and exhaustion.

4. Stress Biomarkers

• Physiological: EEG, ECG, HRV, GSR, cortisol, respiration.

• Behavioral: Facial micro-expressions, speech patterns, posture, eye gaze.

• Multimodal: Combining signals (e.g., EEG + facial expressions) increases robustness and detection accuracy in dynamic environments like classrooms.

5. Limitations of Traditional Methods

• Self-report tools (e.g., PSS, STAI, DASS) are subjective and lack real-time feedback.

• Sensor-based methods offer objectivity but can be intrusive (e.g., headbands, chest straps).

• These issues highlight the need for non-intrusive, automated, and scalable solutions—addressed by deep learning systems.

6. Data Modalities in Classroom Stress Detection

A. Physiological Signals

• Include EEG, ECG, HRV, GSR, respiration.

• Offer objective insights but require wearables, which may cause discomfort and signal interference.

• Recent advances in lightweight, unobtrusive sensors improve classroom feasibility.

B. Behavioral Indicators

• Include facial expressions, voice, posture, eye gaze.

• Can be collected via classroom cameras and microphones.

• Deep learning (e.g., CNNs) can identify subtle, stress-related cues in real time.

• Challenges include lighting, background noise, and cultural variation in expression.

C. Multimodal Fusion

• Combines physiological + behavioral data for more reliable detection.

• Fusion techniques:

  • Early fusion: Combine features before modeling.

  • Late fusion: Merge model outputs.

  • Hybrid fusion: Uses both approaches.

• Enables holistic analysis, though computationally intensive and raises privacy concerns.

Conclusion

This review has presented a comprehensive analysis of deep learning–based stress detection frameworks in classroom environments, highlighting the interplay between data sources, modeling techniques, and application domains. The discussion underscored the growing importance of multimodal approaches, which integrate physiological, behavioral, and contextual signals to enhance detection accuracy and reliability. Furthermore, recent advances in hybrid architectures—such as CNN–LSTM–Transformer models—demonstrate significant potential for capturing both spatial and temporal dynamics of stress responses in real time. Applications in classroom settings reveal that stress monitoring can extend beyond passive observation to support real-time interventions, adaptive learning mechanisms, and personalized educational pathways. These systems enable teachers and administrators to better understand student well-being, thereby fostering inclusive, responsive, and emotionally intelligent learning environments. At the same time, the future directions outlined in this review illustrate the need for continued exploration in explainable AI, unobtrusive sensing, privacy-preserving computation, cross-cultural robustness, and lightweight architectures. Addressing these challenges will be critical for scaling deployment and achieving trustworthy integration into educational ecosystems. In conclusion, the synergy of technological innovation and pedagogical sensitivity holds the key to transforming classrooms into adaptive, student-centered ecosystems. By aligning deep learning advances with ethical, cultural, and infrastructural considerations, stress detection research can evolve from experimental studies into real-world solutions. Such progress not onlyenhances academic outcomes but also contributes to the holistic well-being of learners, ensuring that future classrooms are both technologically advanced and emotionally supportive.

References

[1] H.-G. Kim, D.-K. Jeong, and J.-Y. Kim, “Emotional stress recognition using electroencephalogram signals with a three-dimensional convolutional gated self-attention deep neural model,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 21, Art. 11162, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/app122111162. [2] L. Malviya and S. Mal, “A hybrid deep learning framework for EEG-based stress identification,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 34, no. 22, pp. 17 591–17 604, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00521-022-07540-7. [3] P.-F. Zhang, Y. Zhang, L. Gao, and Y. Zhang, “Psychological stress detection from ECG signals using a deep learning attention-based model,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 6, Art. 2848, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/app11062848. [4] Y. Cho, N. Bianchi-Berthouze, and S. J. Julier, “DeepBreath: Deep learning of breathing patterns for automatic stress analysis using thermal imaging in unconstrained environments,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:1708.06026, 2017. [5] M. Mynoddin, T. Dev, and R. Chakma, “Brain2Vec: CNN–LSTM–attention-based EEG stress detection framework,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2506.11179, 2025. [6] R. Walambe, P. Nayak, A. Bhardwaj, and K. Kotecha, “Multimodal machine learning for stress detection,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2306.09385, 2023. [7] J. Agrawal, M. Gupta, and H. Garg, “Early stress detection and analysis using EEG signals within a machine learning framework,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1116, Art. 012134, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1116/1/012134. [8] H. M. Monisha, R. Sahithi, J. J. Siddarth, and R. A. Kumar, “EEG-based real-time stress detection system using deep learning techniques,” Journal of Data Mining and Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 10–21, Oct. 2024. [9] A. S. Chaudhari and H. Shrivastava, “Survey on EEG-based stress detection using machine learning approaches,” Journal of Electrical Systems, vol. 20, no. 11S, pp. 1–12, 2024. [10] R. S. Lazarus and S. Folkman, Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 1984. [11] H. Selye, The Stress of Life. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1956. [10] R. W. Picard, E. Vyzas, and J. Healey, “Toward machine emotional intelligence: Analysis of affective physiological state,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1175–1191, 2001. [11] A. Cacioppo, J. Tassinary, and G. Berntson, Handbook of Psychophysiology, 3rd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. [12] A. Al-Shargie, T. Tang, N. Badruddin, and M. Kiguchi, “Mental stress assessment based on feature level fusion of fNIRS and EEG signals,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 19889–19896, 2017. [13] U. R. Acharya, K. P. Joseph, N. Kannathal, C. M. Lim, and J. S. Suri, “Heart rate variability: A review,” Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1031– 1051, 2006. [14] S. K. Papastefanou, “Galvanic skin response (GSR) in psychology and medicine,” in Proc. 2019 Hellenic Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (SETN), pp. 1–5. [15] P. Ekman and W. V. Friesen, Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1978. [16] S. Cohen, T. Kamarck, and R. Mermelstein, “A global measure of perceived stress,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 385–396, 1983. [17] C. Spielberger, State–Trait Anxiety Inventory: Bibliography. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1989. [18] S. Chikhi et al., “EEG power spectral measures of cognitive workload: A frontal theta index of cognitive load,” Psychophysiology, vol. 59, no. 3, p. e14009, May 2022, doi: 10.1111/psyp.14009. [19] A. Asif, A. H. Malik, and M. Y. Shaukat, “Human stress classification using EEG signals in response to stressor exposure,” Neurocomputing, vol. 350, pp. 26–41, Feb. 2019. [20] B. Raufi and L. Longo, “An evaluation of the EEG alpha-to-theta and theta-to-alpha band ratios as indexes of mental workload,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, vol. 16, Art. 861967, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fninf.2022.861967. [21] T. Y. Wen and S. A. Mohd Aris, “Electroencephalogram (EEG) stress analysis on alpha/beta ratio and theta/beta ratio,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 175–182, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v17.i1.pp175-182. [22] C.-Y. Chang et al., “Online mental stress detection using frontal-channel EEG recordings in a classroom scenario,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2405.11394, May 2024. [23] J. G. Cruz-Garza et al., “EEG-based investigation of the impact of classroom design on cognitive performance of students,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2102.03629, Feb. 2021. [24] L. Longo, “Modeling cognitive load as a self-supervised brain rate with electroencephalography and deep learning,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2209.10992, Sept. 2022. [25] M. Ahmadi et al., “EEG, pupil dilations, and other physiological measures of cognitive load in a Sternberg memory task,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 8, no. 4, Art. 34, 2024, doi: 10.3390/mti8040034. [26] B. Raufi and L. Longo, “An evaluation of the EEG alpha-to-theta and theta-to-alpha band ratios as indexes of mental workload,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2202.12937, Feb. 2022. [27] A. Ta et al., “Real-Time Stress Monitoring, Detection, and Management in College Students: A Wearable Technology and Machine-Learning Approach,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 5, p. 2504, 2025. [28] M. N. A. Khan et al., “Exploring effects of mental stress with data augmentation techniques,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 428, 2025. [29] X. Ma et al., “The mediating roles of cognitive load and self-efficacy in the relationship between psychological stress and academic performance,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 95, p. 102213, 2025. [30] H. Zhang et al., “Video-based stress detection through deep learning,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 19, p. 5552, 2020. [31] X. Ma et al., “The mediating roles of cognitive load and self-efficacy in the relationship between psychological stress and academic performance,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 95, p. 102213, 2025. [32] J. Zhang et al., “Real-time mental stress detection using multimodality: A deep learning approach,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 16, Art. 947168, 2022. [33] S. Acharya, “A systematic review of EEG-based automated mental stress detection,” Elsevier, Jan. 2025. [34] A. Ometov et al., “Stress and emotion open access data: A review,” Int. J. Multimodal Affect. Comput., 2025. [35] A. Grivet Sébert et al., “Protecting data from all parties: Combining FHE and DP in federated learning,” arXiv preprint, May 2022. [36] D. Shenoy, R. Bhat, and K. Krishna Prakasha, “Exploring privacy mechanisms and metrics in federated learning,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 58, Art. 223, May 2025. [37] N. A. Ab. Aziz et al., “Asian affective and emotional state (A2ES) dataset of ECG and PPG for affective computing research,” Algorithms, vol. 16, no. 3, Art. 130, 2023. [40] A. Grivet Sébert, R. Sirdey, O. Stan, and C. Gouy-Pailler, “Protecting data from all parties: Combining FHE and DP in federated learning,” arXiv preprint, May 2022. [38] S. Bharati, M. R. H. Mondal, P. Podder, and V. B. S. Prasath, “Federated learning: Applications, challenges and future directions,” arXiv preprint, May 2022. [39] K. Han, Y. Wang, and H. Chen, “Lightweight deep learning models for mobile stress recognition,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 4201–4214, 2022. [40] J. Li et al., “Evaluating usability and comfort of wearable stress detection devices in classrooms,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, Art. 1152345, 2023. [41] S. Banbury et al., “Benchmarking TinyML systems for edge AI: A case study on stress detection,” in Proc. 2022 Design Automation Conf. (DAC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 2022, pp. 921–928. [42] S. Kyrou, I. Kompatsiaris, and P. C. Petrantonakis, “Deep learning approaches for stress detection: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 499– 515, Apr.–Jun. 2025. [43] V. Hassija, “Interpreting black-box models: A review on explainable AI,” Cognitive Computation, 2024. [44] H. Liu et al., “Federated learning for privacy-preserving emotion recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 4664–4676, 2022.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Kavitha M, Dr. Jothish Chembath. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.