This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaptainJoseph.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it should also mention Marvin Minsky's book The Emotion Machine 2006
Interesting! Can we have some more on when work started in the field (Parry springs to mind) and what advances have been made recently ? -- Derek Ross 23:43 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I have prepared a project on this topic a few months ago, so I did a bit of research on the current papers. I have a lot of information of this topic, especially on recognizing affect and I will share the best of it, as the article lacks detailed information. What I could offer best fits in the technologies of affective computing section. I have already placed some info there, in the Physiological monitoring and Speech affect sections, and I have some more. However, a lot of sub-topics have been formed and I don't like the layout. Do you have any suggestions? Could you organize it a bit? Thanks S33us00n ( talk) 09:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is barely readable. Although the content is interesting and largely irrefutable it is terribly written. May I suggest a rehaul of the grammatical mistakes?
Agreed the quality of expression leaves something to be desired, but it does have a distinct advantage over a lot of other articles I read on Wiki: right near the start it gives a link to a full PDF of a seminal academic paper on the subject. And the link works! That the paper is by the leading author in the area can be independently confirmed, thus the article gave me precisely what I wanted - a short-cut to the conceptual basis of the subject, without having to wade through hundreds of derivative papers on Google Scholar. So the authors do deserve some credit. -- Wally Tharg ( talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have only recently stumbled upon the arena labelled as 'Affective Computing'. As a social scientist the term 'Affect' has a specific set of meanings denoted by a particular philosophical literature. It seems to me that what is presented in this article presupposes a conflation of 'affect' with 'emotion', which is rather contentious. What I have included below is some of my own grappling with the idea of 'affect', edited from a Masters degree dissertation [Kinsley S (2006) 'An End of Cyberspace? Metaphor, Affect & Socio-technical relations' unpublished: University of Bristol] in the hope that it offers some sort of inroad into reflecting on how or why one might use affect. I would certainly encourage all those taking 'Affective Computing' forward to consider the literature I touch upon. Furthermore, given these points, should those interested in such an arena of research consider alternative titles such as: 'Emotive Computing' or 'Preceptive Computing'? -- Sam Kinsley 6th Novembe 2006 12:05 GMT
A gamut of understandings of affect can be traced across various disciplines, from social psychology and studies of cognition to continental philosophy (for a review see Thrift, 2004). The implicit danger to be recognised in any discussion of affect is a confusion or simplification to ideas of emotion, a criticism that might be levelled here. Prominent amongst theorisations of affect is the work of philosopher Gilles Deleuze who develops the ideas of Baruch de Spinoza (see: Deleuze, 1988).
To productively follow this line of conceptualisation, we should commence from an understanding of experience as trans-subjective, in which, according to Deleuze & Guattari (1988: 180), ‘there is no longer a self’ and bodies vacillate like ‘a glowing fog [...] that has affects and experiences ovements and speeds’ (Ibid.). We can therefore understand affect as a pre-cognitive and impersonal capacity. Experience, according to (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994), can be understood in terms of ‘affects’, the pre-cognitive and perhaps involuntary recoil from a strong odour or the leap of the heart when faced with an attractive man or woman, and ‘percepts’, the odour itself or the appearance of the body. Affect, Thrift (2004: 60) suggests, can thus be understood ‘...as a form of thinking, often indirect and non-reflective, it is true, but thinking all the same’. Further:
‘...if you define bodies and thoughts as capacities for affecting and being affected, many things change. You will define an animal, or a human being not by its form, its organs, and its functions, and not as a subject either; you will define it by the affects of which it is capable’ (Deleuze, 1988: 124).
Do we need ‘affect’ to conceptualise our experience of the world? Indubitably, given that, to paraphrase Hamlet, there are more things in this world than can be understood, represented or conceived of consciously. Our relations are often motivated pre-cognitively and affect, therefore, provides a means of theoretically articulating such motivations.
Some references:
Deleuze G (1988) Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, Hurley R (trans.) San Francisco, CA: City Light Books
Deleuze G & Guattari F (1994) What is Philosophy? Tomlinson H & Burchell G (trans.) London: Verso
Deleuze G & Guattari F (1988) A Thousand Plateaus, Massumi B (trans.) 2004 edition, London: Continuum
Massumi B (2002) Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation, Durham, NC: Duke University Press
Thrift N (2004) “Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect”, Geografiska Annaler 86 B (1): pp. 57-78
I deleted this:
(see strong AI). The possession of innate emotion in non-human intellects is primarily a philosophical topic, since sapience is considered a pre-requisite for the ability to process emotions and there are currently no known models of sapiency besides humans.
Here are my objections: (1) why would strong AI be necessary to process the semantic differentials used to model affective meaning? I think you've got the argument backwards: the claim is that affective meaning is necessary for strong AI, not the other way around. (2) It uses the sci fi word "sapience", which is meaningless in this context. Do you mean " consciousness"? (which has a meaning for neurology or philosophy). Do you mean "intelligence"? Do you mean " soul"? ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely doubtful that the field of affective computing started with Rosalind Picard. This sounds like an extreme exaggeration at best.-- Filll ( talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this field. But I do remember reading about this back into the 70s and even into the 60s. And I have a huge number of links I have been going through. If we are going to have an article on this, let's do the best job we can instead of just creating a disgusting inaccurate mess with no references and no sources.--
Filll (
talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following because it presupposes much yet proves naught.
Sorry, but you've gotta prove this drivel. •Jim62sch• dissera! 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Excessive fact-tagging is considered disruptive. When I have time I'm going to go through this article and remove some of them. There's already a {{ inline}} on top. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Prostheses for Autism? "Affective computing is also being applied to the development of prosthetic devices for use in alleviating autism.". Obviously this is meaningless without further explanation. •Jim62sch• dissera! 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, [1] (I presume new tools would be "prosthetic" in nature), um, and [2] from this publication list, several of the 2008 papers look like those describe prosthetics. Does anyone have a science library in the neighborhood to check those? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We might consider them to be orthotic rather than prosthetic if they are intended to assist or correct brain function rather than replace the brain. (Curiously, I used to have the same argument with Doug Lenat about Cyc.) Bovlb ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The second para of the lead says
Affective Computing is also the title of a textbook on the subject, by Professor Rosalind Picard, published in 1997 by MIT Press.[1] The origins of the field trace back to Picard's 1995 paper on Affective Computing
Do we really need that in the lead? Aside from the honorifics and the publication data on the book, isn't this more of a hatnote? Guettarda ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"emotions in machines might be associated with abstract states associated with progress (or lack of progress) in autonomous learning systems." And it might not. This is really, really speculative. It kind of presupposes that we know the solution to how autonomous learning systems might "think", and might even risk anthropomorphism. I think the article would be fine without this sentence. Themusicgod1 ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:aviso FP|Computación afectiva}}
Galvanic skin response was measured throughout gameplay, measuring someone's arousal. Firstly, wouldn't that be measured using a plethysmograph? Also, I'm not actually sure how your player character is supposed to be "killed" in an eroge. Q16168714, anyone? Or am I just not quite fluent in my own birth language? 103.14.61.240 ( talk) 11:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Affective computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Affective computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there critics of the "interactional" approach to affective computing? The idea that emotions do not occur in the absence of social interaction seems obviously wrong. It would also be interesting to give an example of some emotion they say is subjective or can't be quantified, because that also doesn't make any sense to me. -- Beland ( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to add additional applications after reformatting that section, but my first entry (regarding healthcare) keeps getting deleted. There are hundreds of potential applications not listed here, notable and with good sources. Can an editor tell me why my addition was not accepted so I can alter my approach and begin adding more of these in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyburg ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Got ya. Thanks for the response, it's helpful! I'll do more digging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyburg ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians
I find this article to be useful and acknowledgeable. It is a great summary of affective computing. But there are still some problems that I want to point out.
The referenced article is relevant old for academic research, lots of them are older than 2008. This kind of article cannot should users the new progress in the affective computing field which might info the readers of wrong or old ideas.
And in recent study there are some article point out the emotion can be simulated by RGB principle. [1]
Best Regards
CaptainJoseph ( talk) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
References
While the introductory sentence mentions "systems ... that can ... simulate human affects", I didn't find anything about this subarea in the rest of the article. If there is another article about this issue, could somebody please provide a link to it? I believe there is some work about e.g. generating image of faces to express a given emotion (used in chatbots), but I can't find any appropriate Wikipedia article. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College Of Engineering Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaptainJoseph.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it should also mention Marvin Minsky's book The Emotion Machine 2006
Interesting! Can we have some more on when work started in the field (Parry springs to mind) and what advances have been made recently ? -- Derek Ross 23:43 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I have prepared a project on this topic a few months ago, so I did a bit of research on the current papers. I have a lot of information of this topic, especially on recognizing affect and I will share the best of it, as the article lacks detailed information. What I could offer best fits in the technologies of affective computing section. I have already placed some info there, in the Physiological monitoring and Speech affect sections, and I have some more. However, a lot of sub-topics have been formed and I don't like the layout. Do you have any suggestions? Could you organize it a bit? Thanks S33us00n ( talk) 09:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is barely readable. Although the content is interesting and largely irrefutable it is terribly written. May I suggest a rehaul of the grammatical mistakes?
Agreed the quality of expression leaves something to be desired, but it does have a distinct advantage over a lot of other articles I read on Wiki: right near the start it gives a link to a full PDF of a seminal academic paper on the subject. And the link works! That the paper is by the leading author in the area can be independently confirmed, thus the article gave me precisely what I wanted - a short-cut to the conceptual basis of the subject, without having to wade through hundreds of derivative papers on Google Scholar. So the authors do deserve some credit. -- Wally Tharg ( talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have only recently stumbled upon the arena labelled as 'Affective Computing'. As a social scientist the term 'Affect' has a specific set of meanings denoted by a particular philosophical literature. It seems to me that what is presented in this article presupposes a conflation of 'affect' with 'emotion', which is rather contentious. What I have included below is some of my own grappling with the idea of 'affect', edited from a Masters degree dissertation [Kinsley S (2006) 'An End of Cyberspace? Metaphor, Affect & Socio-technical relations' unpublished: University of Bristol] in the hope that it offers some sort of inroad into reflecting on how or why one might use affect. I would certainly encourage all those taking 'Affective Computing' forward to consider the literature I touch upon. Furthermore, given these points, should those interested in such an arena of research consider alternative titles such as: 'Emotive Computing' or 'Preceptive Computing'? -- Sam Kinsley 6th Novembe 2006 12:05 GMT
A gamut of understandings of affect can be traced across various disciplines, from social psychology and studies of cognition to continental philosophy (for a review see Thrift, 2004). The implicit danger to be recognised in any discussion of affect is a confusion or simplification to ideas of emotion, a criticism that might be levelled here. Prominent amongst theorisations of affect is the work of philosopher Gilles Deleuze who develops the ideas of Baruch de Spinoza (see: Deleuze, 1988).
To productively follow this line of conceptualisation, we should commence from an understanding of experience as trans-subjective, in which, according to Deleuze & Guattari (1988: 180), ‘there is no longer a self’ and bodies vacillate like ‘a glowing fog [...] that has affects and experiences ovements and speeds’ (Ibid.). We can therefore understand affect as a pre-cognitive and impersonal capacity. Experience, according to (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994), can be understood in terms of ‘affects’, the pre-cognitive and perhaps involuntary recoil from a strong odour or the leap of the heart when faced with an attractive man or woman, and ‘percepts’, the odour itself or the appearance of the body. Affect, Thrift (2004: 60) suggests, can thus be understood ‘...as a form of thinking, often indirect and non-reflective, it is true, but thinking all the same’. Further:
‘...if you define bodies and thoughts as capacities for affecting and being affected, many things change. You will define an animal, or a human being not by its form, its organs, and its functions, and not as a subject either; you will define it by the affects of which it is capable’ (Deleuze, 1988: 124).
Do we need ‘affect’ to conceptualise our experience of the world? Indubitably, given that, to paraphrase Hamlet, there are more things in this world than can be understood, represented or conceived of consciously. Our relations are often motivated pre-cognitively and affect, therefore, provides a means of theoretically articulating such motivations.
Some references:
Deleuze G (1988) Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, Hurley R (trans.) San Francisco, CA: City Light Books
Deleuze G & Guattari F (1994) What is Philosophy? Tomlinson H & Burchell G (trans.) London: Verso
Deleuze G & Guattari F (1988) A Thousand Plateaus, Massumi B (trans.) 2004 edition, London: Continuum
Massumi B (2002) Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation, Durham, NC: Duke University Press
Thrift N (2004) “Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect”, Geografiska Annaler 86 B (1): pp. 57-78
I deleted this:
(see strong AI). The possession of innate emotion in non-human intellects is primarily a philosophical topic, since sapience is considered a pre-requisite for the ability to process emotions and there are currently no known models of sapiency besides humans.
Here are my objections: (1) why would strong AI be necessary to process the semantic differentials used to model affective meaning? I think you've got the argument backwards: the claim is that affective meaning is necessary for strong AI, not the other way around. (2) It uses the sci fi word "sapience", which is meaningless in this context. Do you mean " consciousness"? (which has a meaning for neurology or philosophy). Do you mean "intelligence"? Do you mean " soul"? ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely doubtful that the field of affective computing started with Rosalind Picard. This sounds like an extreme exaggeration at best.-- Filll ( talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this field. But I do remember reading about this back into the 70s and even into the 60s. And I have a huge number of links I have been going through. If we are going to have an article on this, let's do the best job we can instead of just creating a disgusting inaccurate mess with no references and no sources.--
Filll (
talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following because it presupposes much yet proves naught.
Sorry, but you've gotta prove this drivel. •Jim62sch• dissera! 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Excessive fact-tagging is considered disruptive. When I have time I'm going to go through this article and remove some of them. There's already a {{ inline}} on top. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Prostheses for Autism? "Affective computing is also being applied to the development of prosthetic devices for use in alleviating autism.". Obviously this is meaningless without further explanation. •Jim62sch• dissera! 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, [1] (I presume new tools would be "prosthetic" in nature), um, and [2] from this publication list, several of the 2008 papers look like those describe prosthetics. Does anyone have a science library in the neighborhood to check those? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We might consider them to be orthotic rather than prosthetic if they are intended to assist or correct brain function rather than replace the brain. (Curiously, I used to have the same argument with Doug Lenat about Cyc.) Bovlb ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The second para of the lead says
Affective Computing is also the title of a textbook on the subject, by Professor Rosalind Picard, published in 1997 by MIT Press.[1] The origins of the field trace back to Picard's 1995 paper on Affective Computing
Do we really need that in the lead? Aside from the honorifics and the publication data on the book, isn't this more of a hatnote? Guettarda ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"emotions in machines might be associated with abstract states associated with progress (or lack of progress) in autonomous learning systems." And it might not. This is really, really speculative. It kind of presupposes that we know the solution to how autonomous learning systems might "think", and might even risk anthropomorphism. I think the article would be fine without this sentence. Themusicgod1 ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:aviso FP|Computación afectiva}}
Galvanic skin response was measured throughout gameplay, measuring someone's arousal. Firstly, wouldn't that be measured using a plethysmograph? Also, I'm not actually sure how your player character is supposed to be "killed" in an eroge. Q16168714, anyone? Or am I just not quite fluent in my own birth language? 103.14.61.240 ( talk) 11:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Affective computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Affective computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there critics of the "interactional" approach to affective computing? The idea that emotions do not occur in the absence of social interaction seems obviously wrong. It would also be interesting to give an example of some emotion they say is subjective or can't be quantified, because that also doesn't make any sense to me. -- Beland ( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to add additional applications after reformatting that section, but my first entry (regarding healthcare) keeps getting deleted. There are hundreds of potential applications not listed here, notable and with good sources. Can an editor tell me why my addition was not accepted so I can alter my approach and begin adding more of these in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyburg ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Got ya. Thanks for the response, it's helpful! I'll do more digging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyburg ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians
I find this article to be useful and acknowledgeable. It is a great summary of affective computing. But there are still some problems that I want to point out.
The referenced article is relevant old for academic research, lots of them are older than 2008. This kind of article cannot should users the new progress in the affective computing field which might info the readers of wrong or old ideas.
And in recent study there are some article point out the emotion can be simulated by RGB principle. [1]
Best Regards
CaptainJoseph ( talk) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
References
While the introductory sentence mentions "systems ... that can ... simulate human affects", I didn't find anything about this subarea in the rest of the article. If there is another article about this issue, could somebody please provide a link to it? I believe there is some work about e.g. generating image of faces to express a given emotion (used in chatbots), but I can't find any appropriate Wikipedia article. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College Of Engineering Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)