Talk:Affective computing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: 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?
:I've started, but I don't understand enough of the field to get right through it. It looks as though it has been translated from Japanese or something. Myopic Bookworm 11:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS The article needs to be prevented from heading off into more general issues of emotional research.
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)
thread_title:  Quality of article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dubious tag

message: 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)
replies: text: I might also note that it seems to me that these activities were going on in Japan, long before Picard was involved. And maybe at IBM and other places too. So, I have my doubts. Maybe she invented the name. Maybe. But the field? --Filll (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I invented neurothanopathy.  So?  •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Funny you FILL the article with "vague" tags and then support this with a vague assumption :) Did you read the PDF? Probably not because it would answer the question. Yes others might have (you didn't show any citations for your statement so I'll have to include the "might" here) done some research in the field before, however she formalized it. Thus the field of affective computing really did start with her. I hope you guys enjoyed mutilating this article. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure. We'll just go by best knowledge, that works fine. Can you cite earlier sources? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful history 

message: 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  on top. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive use of unsubstantiated claims is non-academic.  It is important to show precisely what claims need to be supported.  That's the way of Academe, and as Wikipedia has, through the Foundation, expressed a desire to be considered an academic medium we must follow the same strictures. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were so many statements that lacked substantiation that it had to be clear how bad it was.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That is actually exactly what article-wide tagging is for. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You's think that was obvious, but, apparently not. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, see above for why not. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: uh, where?  I like specifity.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article-wide tagging is generally used for articles that are short of inline citations. See the recent TfD of nofooters for general custom on this. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I know an autism specialist who has a prosthetic arm.  Does that count?  Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read a few things about this work, it's really good, I'd dedicate a section to it. I would suggest that aside from the rather heady philosophical/theoretical world of AI, computers are applied as a communications tool (related to writing), and hence affective computing's chief application should therefore be as a communications device, either enhancing able peoples' capacities to communicate, or to enable people with impairment or disability. Here's a good starting place. http://affect.media.mit.edu/projectpages/esp/ ;-) you see what I mean? :-| ... :-) ––– --welcome to the 21st century (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Hmm, one of my daughters is autistic (thus I have a dog in this chase); however, the term prosthetic is mierda del toro.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So orthotic is (more) correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, are we talking about the same disorder?  Orthotic is as incorrect as prosthetic. •Jim62sch•dissera! 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Autism, AC and ''Prostheses''???

message: The second para of the lead says
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)
replies: text: I added "maybe".  •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added two sources which name Picard as the originator of this field, and removed the "maybe". I'm also working on collecting references for other  requests, though this may take some time. In my casual reading on this topic, there seems to be nothing blatantly wrong (several references to both autism and "toys" in the literature, for example), so please be patient. ATren (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources I glanced mainly cite her 1997 book as the main contribution, not the 1995 tech report? What is your impression? Merzul (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - the two sources I cited seemed to be in conflict: Wired said it was the book, but the other (academic) source said it was the tech paper. They're both named "Affective Computing" so perhaps the book was an expansion of the paper? The paper came earlier, and it is cited by others, so perhaps that should be stated as the true origin. But it seems like a minor issue to me, since both are Picard's works anyway. ATren (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe just say it originated with the work of Picard? I don't know, and you seem to know much more than me. Merzul (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just started researching it yesterday, so I only have a day's worth of expertise over you. :-)  I think it's fine to say it originated with the work of Picard, and if I find something more specific and definitive, I'll change it. I plan to work on this article in the coming weeks, to resolve the fact tags. ATren (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second para of lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arousal + "death" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ls12-www.cs.tu-dortmund.de/~fink/lectures/SS06/human-robot-interaction/Emotion-RecognitionAndSimulation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019130324/http://face-and-emotion.com:80/dataface/facs/description.jsp to http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/facs/description.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528135730/http://ls12-www.cs.tu-dortmund.de/~fink/lectures/SS06/human-robot-interaction/Emotion-RecognitionAndSimulation.pdf to http://ls12-www.cs.tu-dortmund.de//~fink/lectures/SS06/human-robot-interaction/Emotion-RecognitionAndSimulation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228085345/http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Basic-Emotions.pdf to http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Basic-Emotions.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interactional approach 

message: 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)
replies: text: The sourcing isn't good enough. First you were using a BPU press release, then you switched to an Opinion column by the CTO of BPU. BPU is trying to develop this technology, so they obviously have a vested interest in promoting it. We should have a source that's unaffiliated with BPU to include content like this here. - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: 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.Data mining in emotion color with affective computing
Best Regards 
 CaptainJoseph (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating some content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simulation