Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | daniella-mathews |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
WP3’s Working GroupsSynthesis
2GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Geneva, 17-19 June, 2004
First HUMAINE workshop: “Theories and Models of Emotion”
• WG1 “Conceptual and terminological clarifications”Chair: David Sander ([email protected])
• WG2 “Emotion and computational modeling”Chair: Klaus Scherer, Etienne Roesch ([email protected])
• WG3 “Emotional communication skills”Chair: Tanja Bänziger ([email protected])
3GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
WG1 “Conceptual and terminological clarifications”
• David Sander ([email protected])• Take advantage of the multi-facets of
HUMAINE (e.g., multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural)
• Outcomes: 2 types of documents,– Clarifications of a finite and agreed set of
concepts and operational definitions– Research documents: comparative studies
among the HUMAINE community
4GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
A design-feature approach to define the different types of affect
QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)
sont requis pour visionner cette image.
Table 1.Scherer (2004). HUMAINE Plenary Meeting. DFKI, Saarbrücken, March 1-3, 2004.
5GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
1st proposal: A partialhierarchy for affect
6GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Spatial distribution of emotion-relevant concepts
Aim: to define concepts using a similarity/difference approach
• Hierarchy = Collection of components/concepts
• Concept = {sub-components ; features}
• Inheritance rules, would allow to define what is and what is not– Super-ordinate/Adjacent/Sub-ordinate concepts
– Overlapping concepts
7GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Now, define “emotion-relevant concepts” !..
• Finite set of consensual/useful concepts (i.e., operationaliz-able concepts)
• Deliverables WP3, WP5• .. in different contexts: theoretical
understanding, applications, computational,
et cetera ..
8GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
WG2 “Emotion models and computational modeling”
• Klaus Scherer, Etienne Roesch ([email protected])
• Grounded on the “failures” in attempts to implement/misunderstandings brought up during dialogs between engineers and theorists (numerous theories/interpretations)
Need to bridge theoretical/conceptual gaps, in order to allow dialog between disciplines
9GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Exemplar 1: a cohesive approach to conceptualization of emotions
What model for
what purpose?
10GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Exemplar 2: “Blueprint for an affectively competent agent”
• Fruitful dialog between Ethology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Computer Science, Philosophy, and Psychology
• Detailed specifications and proposals about what an affective agent should be able to do (information processes to be implemented, norms, values, etc)
11GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Exemplar 2: “Blueprint for an affectively competent agent”
• Comprehensive document: an edited book• Gather descriptions of computational
modules to be implemented (e.g., motivation, goals, values)
– Theoretical perspectives (e.g., psychological, philosophical, ethological)
– Technical (engineering) perspectives (i.e., implementation attempts)
12GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Recommendations to ECAs designers
ECAs should focus on the communicative function of emotions– “generative” approach, focused on the synthesis of
emotions– “peripheral” approach, focused on defining the
relevant cues to be used in HCI (emphasis on multi-modality)
Link with WG3 “Emotion communication skills”
13GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
WG3 “Emotional communication skills”
Emotional sensitivity/recognition
Assessment of Human Performance
Assessment of Automatic Recognition
•number of categories•contexts•dealing with confusions•multiple channels•comparison groups
Planned outcome (exemplar)
Recommendations for the benchmarking of automatic recognition systems.
Norms for different groups (?)
14GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
Current directions
Two types of interests
labellingannotation
•complex expressions•few examples•non standard contexts
automatic recognition
•broad distinctions•large corpora•restricted contexts
What are the specific constraints on a system (in a given context) ?What benefits from a more informed approach ?
How are they perceived ? How large are individual differences ?How does one define skill/success ?
Innovative approach to assessment of sensitivity ?
Compare performance and cue utilization of automatic vs human discrimination
15GERG • Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004
“From signs to emotions and vice-versa: Related exemplars from HUMAINE WP’s”
Signals-to-Signs related exemplars:
• WG2– “Blueprint for an affectively competent
agent”
• WG3– “Benchmarking of automatic emotion
recognition systems”