11–20 of 40 posts
Still Eliza on steroids is pretty cool. Can't wait till they integrate it into emacs.
This is interesting to me because... is there even a scientific definition of depression yet? Such that, if you have a defined list of symptoms, you are definitely depressed, and if you don't, you are definitely not depressed? If not, we're at best talking about a magnitudinal thing or a probability thing. Like a Bayesian thing where each symptom's presence updates the probability of the person being depressed, which…
This is interesting to me because... is there even a scientific definition of depression yet? Such that, if you have a defined list of symptoms, you are definitely depressed, and if you don't, you are definitely not depressed? If not, we're at best talking about a magnitudinal thing or a probability thing. Like a Bayesian thing where each symptom's presence updates the probability of the person being depressed, which…
It depends a bit on what you mean. In the U.S. at least, diagnosis of depression is generally based on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).[1] That lists a number of disorders that would be categorized under "depression", including "Major Depressive Disorder", "Dysthymia", and the catchily named "Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified".
In the DSM, these disorders are all treated as syndromes, meaning they are defined entirely by symptoms. They may have organic causes (troubles with neurotransmitters, etc.), but the definition of each disorder does not address that issue. This is in contrast to something like influenza, which refers to a particular organic cause (infection by a certain kind of virus).
As for the actual definitions, they vary in how specific they are. Major Depressive Disorder is quite specific, requiring certain kinds of episodes to occur with specified frequencies and lengths. On the other end of the scale is DD-NOS, which is essentially defined as a depression-ish thing that doesn't fit into any of the other categories. (Okay, it's a little more precise than that, but, honestly, not much.)
> This is not to be mistaken for saying it doesn't exist or that it's all in someone's head - it's more just to say that if someone has depression, they have something that may deserve treatment and sensitivity, but that it's something that we still do not know exactly how to describe or diagnose, and so therefore we will just call it "depression" in the meantime.
I'd say that's pretty much on target. However, biology & biochemistry are proceeding forward at a breakneck pace these days. We do have some understanding of the causes for some kinds of depression, and this understanding seems to be improving significantly each year.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Man...
First of all, this is blog spam, and the OP has apparently never tried viewing their own site on a tablet. Second, where's the methodology. Third, it's not the Kinect doing the diagnosing, it's the computer vision algorithm
First of all, this is blog spam, and the OP has apparently never tried viewing their own site on a tablet. Second, where's the methodology. Third, it's not the Kinect doing the diagnosing, it's the computer vision algorithm
http://schererstefan.net/assets/files/scherer_etal_FG2013.pd...
I've only skimmed it, but the vision work looks sound, and it looks like it makes pretty essential use of the depth map from the Kinect. But I don't think there's any speech recognition going on, so that part is just acting (from both the humans and the virtual platform). I'll bet an untrained user could get the system to break pretty quickly...
Neat proof of concept, though.
90% isn't all that great of a result considering only about 6.7% of the US population suffers from depression each year[1] and the study was done in California. Just returning false would give you better accuracy. Still Eliza on steroids is pretty cool. Can't wait till they integrate it into emacs. [1] http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1MDD_ADULT.shtml
If you interpret it as a measure of the tests sensitivity, then you're right 90% is pretty easy to beat!
If you interpret it as a measure of the tests specificity, then 90% accuracy is pretty darn good!
A little more accuracy would be nice, but then the title wouldn't be click-bait.
I like the idea though. Accurate depression test: Are you depressed? No. 93.3% accurate!
First of all, this is blog spam, and the OP has apparently never tried viewing their own site on a tablet. Second, where's the methodology. Third, it's not the Kinect doing the diagnosing, it's the computer vision algorithm
It looks like the research paper this is based on is here: http://schererstefan.net/assets/files/scherer_etal_FG2013.pd... I've only skimmed it, but the vision work looks sound, and it looks like it makes pretty essential use of the depth map from the Kinect. But I don't think there's any speech recognition going on, so that part is just acting (from both the humans and the virtual platform). I'll bet an untrained us…
Reminds me of a certain someone asking another certain someone why he flipped a tortoise in the desert...
This is interesting to me because... is there even a scientific definition of depression yet? Such that, if you have a defined list of symptoms, you are definitely depressed, and if you don't, you are definitely not depressed? If not, we're at best talking about a magnitudinal thing or a probability thing. Like a Bayesian thing where each symptom's presence updates the probability of the person being depressed, which…
I studied psych in college a few years back and read about a variety of studies on how individuals with slight-moderate depression respond to certain stimuli. One of the most interesting studies (unrelated to the topic) had to deal with individuals looking into a mirror after failing a task. Individuals with >= slight depression would look themselves in the eyes, while happily ignorant individuals would avoid eye con…
I've also read that depressed people tend to have a more accurate picture of reality. Basically, happy people are walking Dunning-Kruger cases waiting to happen?
This is interesting to me because... is there even a scientific definition of depression yet? Such that, if you have a defined list of symptoms, you are definitely depressed, and if you don't, you are definitely not depressed? If not, we're at best talking about a magnitudinal thing or a probability thing. Like a Bayesian thing where each symptom's presence updates the probability of the person being depressed, which…
> This is interesting to me because... is there even a scientific definition of depression yet? Such that, if you have a defined list of symptoms, you are definitely depressed, and if you don't, you are definitely not depressed? It depends a bit on what you mean. In the U.S. at least, diagnosis of depression is generally based on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor…