Leveraging video analysis for early detection of psychosocial distress in educational settings


Abstract

Early identification of psychosocial distress in students is essential for creating supportive educational environments and enhancing mental well-being. Traditional methods, relying on subjective self-reports or periodic assessments, often lack temporal granularity and are susceptible to underreporting, which limits timely intervention. Video analysis offers a non-intrusive approach to monitoring behavioral cues linked to psychosocial distress but is hindered by an overemphasis on coarse-grained action classification or frame-level features, overlooking the intricate temporal dynamics and subtle postural variations in real-world settings. To overcome these limitations, we propose a framework integrating structured video analysis with symbolic formalization, representation learning, and cross-sequence temporal reasoning. The Temporal Attentive Pose Embedding Network (TAPEN), an end-to-end trainable architecture, captures semantics and temporal continuity at the posture level using a dual-stream network with self-attention and recurrent layers. Complementing this, the Cross-Sequence Temporal Reconciliation (CSTR) strategy synthesizes multiple video streams into a unified behavioral timeline, enabling accurate predictions of distress signals across diverse contexts. Experimental results validate the proposed system’s ability to identify psychosocial cues with high accuracy under sparse annotations and varying environmental conditions, contributing to advancements in AI-driven systems designed to promote psychosocial health through adaptive and context-aware behavioral analysis.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].