1. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 WP3’s Working Groups Synthesis

2. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 1 Geneva, 17-19 June, 2004 First HUMAINE workshop: “Theories and Models of Emotion” WG1 “Conceptual and terminological clarifications” Chair: David Sander (david.sander@pse.unige.ch) WG2 “Emotion and computational modeling” Chair: Klaus Scherer, Etienne Roesch (etienne.roesch@pse.unige.ch) WG3 “Emotional communication skills” Chair: Tanja Bänziger (tanja.banziger@pse.unige.ch)

3. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 2 WG1 “Conceptual and terminological clarifications” David Sander (david.sander@pse.unige.ch) 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

4. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 3 A design-feature approach to define the different types of affect Table 1. Scherer (2004). HUMAINE Plenary Meeting. DFKI, Saarbrücken, March 1-3, 2004.

5. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 4 1st proposal: A partial hierarchy for affect

6. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 5 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

7. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 6 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..

8. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 7 WG2 “Emotion models and computational modeling” Klaus Scherer, Etienne Roesch (etienne.roesch@pse.unige.ch) 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

9. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 8 Exemplar 1: a cohesive approach to conceptualization of emotions What model for what purpose?

10. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 9 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)

11. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 10 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)

12. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 11 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”

13. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 12 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 (?)

14. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 13 Current directions Two types of interests labelling annotation 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

15. GERG Santorini, 18-21 June, 2004 14 “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”