A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion

By Jonathan Gratch, Stacy C. Marsella. Cognitive Systems Research, 2004

847 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Control and Systems Engineering, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d71646a3d2658c78a7a7982f7bbbcff7981fc45

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Control and Systems Engineering

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Empirically building and evaluating a probabilistic model of user affect (2009, background): “In addition, (Gratch & Marsella, 2004) consider extending their computational framework of appraisal & coping, EMA, by modeling the link from appraisal to bodily expression as future work.”
The role of emotion in self-explanations by cognitive agents (2017, methodology): “An increasing amount of cognitive agents is simulating emotions using computational models of emotion like EMA [13], and FAtiMA [10].”
It’s okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games (2010, background): “…include eye-gazing, biological motion, display of natural facial activity, display of emotions, as well as breathing, natural vocal tones, and display of intelligence (Gratch & Marsella, 2004; Holtgraves, Ross, Weywadt, & Han, in press; Morrison & Ziemke, 2005; Shapiro, Peña, & Hancock, 2006).”
Emotions are emergent processes: they require a dynamic computational architecture (2009, background): “It can be argued that neural network models are much better suited to model emergent emotion processes than are hierarchical decision tree or rule systems (e.g. Chwelos & Oatley 1994; Gratch & Marsella 2004; Spackman 2004).”
Feeling and Reasoning: A Computational Model for Emotional Characters (2005, methodology): “Gratch and Marsella further extended and integrated their ideas to create EMA which is used in the Mission Rehearsal Exercise system [12].”
Extending the Soar Cognitive Architecture (2008, methodology): “It is possible to implement similar theories of emotion in Soar without modifying the architecture [ 21 ]; however, in these approaches, Soar is used more as a programming language than as a cognitive architecture – all of the important functionality of the system comes from procedural knowledge enc”
A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion (2005, neutral): “…in preparation; Sander, Grafman, & Zalla, 2003; Sander & Scherer, in press) and to encourage the development of computational models of component emotion processes (Frijda & Swagerman, 1987; Scherer, 1993; Wehrle & Scherer, 2001; see also Gratch & Marsella, 2004; Staller & Petta, 1998, 2001).”
EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics (2009, background): “…calculus e.g., the intensity of a threat is a function of the likelihood of the threat times the utility of the goal that is threatened but these distinctions are secondary for the present example and the reader is referred to (Gratch & Marsella, 2004a, 2004b) for these details.”
Narrative Planning: Balancing Plot and Character (2010, neutral): “…believability, including personality (e.g., Carbonell, 1980; Reilly, 1996; Rizzo, Veloso, Miceli, & Cesta, 1999; Sengers, 2000), emotion (e.g., Gratch & Marsella, 2004; Seif El-Nasr, Yen, & Ioerger, 2000), and appearance and physical performance (e.g., Blumberg & Galyean, 1995; Maes, Darrell,…”