There is much shallow thinking about emotions, and a huge diversity of definitions of “emotion ” arises out of this shallowness. Too often the definitions and theories are inspired either by a mixture of introspection and selective common sense, or by a misdirected neo-behaviourist methodology, attempting to define emotions and other mental states in terms of observables. One way to avoid such shallowness, and perhaps eventually achieve convergence, is to base concepts and theories on an information processing architecture, which is subject to various constraints, including evolvability, implementability, coping with resource-limited physical mechanisms, and human-like functionality. Within such an architecture-based theory we can distinguish (at least) primary emotions, secondary emotions, and tertiary emotions, and produce a coherent theory which explains a wide range of phenomena and also partly explains the diversity of theories: most theorists focus on only a subset of types of emotions.

A problem which bedevils the study of emotions, and the study of consciousness, is that we assume a shared understanding of many everyday concepts, such as `emotion', `feeling', `pleasure', `pain', `desire', `awareness', etc. Unfortunately, these concepts are inherently very complex, ill-defined, and used with different meanings by different people. Moreover this goes unnoticed, so that people think they understand what they are referring to even when their understanding is very unclear. Consequently there is much discussion that is inherently vague, often at cross-purposes, and with apparent disagreements that arise out of people unwittingly talking about different things. We need a framework which explains how there can be all the diverse phenomena that different people refer to when they talk about emotions and other affective states and processes. The conjecture on which this paper is based is that adult humans have a type of information-processing architecture, with components whi...

We summarize selected recent developments and promising directions for improving the quality of models of human performance in synthetic environments. The potential uses and goals for behavioral models in synthetic environments are first summarized. Within that context, we examine relevant, current work related to modeling more complete performance, for example, on cognitive modeling of emotion, advanced techniques for testing and building models of behavior, new cognitive architectures, and agent and Belief, Desires and Intentions (BDI) technology. The report also considers the usability of these systems as an important but neglected aspect of their performance. A list of projects with high payoff for modeling human performance in synthetic environments is noted.

Previous work concerned with motivation in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) has mainly focused on the strategies that an ITS could use to motivate the student. In this paper we focus on the prior task of detecting the student's motivational state, on which such strategies could be used.

A problem which bedevils the study of emotions, and the study of consciousness, is that we assume a shared understanding of many everyday concepts, such as ‘emotion’, ‘feeling’, ‘pleasure’, ‘pain’, ‘desire’, ‘awareness’, etc. Unfortunately, these concepts are inherently very complex, ill-defined, and used with different meanings by different people. Moreover this goes unnoticed, so that people think they understand what they are referring to even when their understanding is very unclear. Consequently there is much discussion that is inherently vague, often at cross-purposes, and with apparent disagreements that arise out of people unwittingly talking about different things. We need a framework which explains how there can be all the diverse phenomena that different people refer to when they talk about emotions and other affective states and processes. The conjecture on which this paper is based is that adult humans have a type of information-processing architecture, with components which evolved at different times, including a rich and varied collection of components whose interactions can generate all the sorts of phenomena that different researchers have labelled “emotions”. Within this framework we can provide rational reconstructions of many everyday concepts of mind. We can also allow a variety of different architectures, found in children, brain damaged adults, other animals, robots, software agents, etc., where different architectures support different classes of states and processes, and therefore different mental ontologies. Thus concepts like ‘emotion’, ‘awareness’, etc. will need to be interpreted differently when referring to different architectures. We need to limit the class of architectures under consideration, since for any class of behaviours there are indefinitely many architectures