Towards a model of fear in Soar* Ronald S. Chong Soar Technology, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

SOAR WORKSHOP XIV MAY 22, 1999

Towards a model of fear in Soar*

Ronald S. Chong Soar Technology, Inc.

*This research was funded under Phase 1 of Army STTR 98-T004 awarded to Soar Technologies, Inc.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

WHY MODEL EMOTIONS?

• More human-like behavior from computer-generated entities.

Increases the efficacy of training

• Recent wide acceptance of the intrinsic role emotions play in cognition.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional

• life. New York, NY: Touchstone (Simon & Schuster).

Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.

Cambridge University Press.

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York, NY: Avon Books. Emotional and Intelligent: The tangled knot of cognition. Papers from the 1998 AAAI

Fall Symposium. Technical report FS-98-03. Menlo Park, CA:AAAI Press.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

FEAR: SOME PHENOMENA AND OBSERVATIONS

• Non-volitional freezing at the appearance of a perceived threat
• Perceptual attention is narrowed to the perceived threat
• Responses are biased towards those reducing the level of threat
• Neurologic structures implicated in fear response

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes Sensory cortex Amygdala Detailed representation

• f the stimulus

Raw Stimulus Data “low road”

“high road”

Mildly encoded stimulus features Crude stimulus features Sensory thalamus

NEUROLOGY OF FEAR (LEDOUX)

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF EMOTIONS (ORTONY, CLORE & COLLINS)

• “. . . an approach to the study of emotion that explains how people’s perceptions
• f the world—their construals—cause them to experience emotions.”
• “. . . view emotions as valanced reactions to events, agents, or objects, with their

particular nature being determined by the way in which the eliciting situation is construed.”

• “A person’s appraisal of an emotion-inducing situation is based on three central

variables: desirability, praiseworthiness, and appealingness . . .”

• Several factors affecting the intensity of emotions

Global variables for all emotions: sense of reality, proximity, unexpectedness, arousal Local variables for particular groups of emotions: likelihood, effort, realization, etc.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

SOMATIC MARKER HYPOTHESIS (DAMASIO)

• “When the bad outcome connected with a given response option comes into mind,

. . . your experience an unpleasant gut feeling.”

• Somatic markers “force attention on the negative [positive] outcome to which a

given action may lead, and functions as an automated alarm signal . . . [that] may lead you to reject [accept], immediately, the negative [positive] course of action . . . . and then allows you to choose from among fewer alternatives.”

• How are they acquired? “When the choice of option X, which leads to bad
• utcome Y, is followed by punishment and thus painful body states, [a somatic

marker is acquired.] Re-exposure . . . to option X, or thoughts about the outcome

• f Y, will now have the power to reenact the painful body state and thus serve as

an automated reminder of bad consequences to come.”

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes Arousal Arousal Control Intensity Features Features “low road”

“high road”

All Stimulus Features Appraisal “Amygdala” Emotion Innate Response Overt Response Response selection Response search Rational Response Perception & attention Inhibition Update Prime

EMOTION/FEAR MODEL (AS OF 05/19/99 @ 2:33PM)

• “Paper” model is inspired by LeDoux, Ortony, Damasio, Sherer and others.
• Still very much under development

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

Features

“high road”

Appraisal Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes Arousal Features “low road” All Stimulus Features “Amygdala” Perception & attention

SCENARIO A

• A person is walking through the woods and comes to a large log across the path.

He bends down to roll the log out of the way, and while doing so, uncovers and glimpses a long, slender, curvy object.

• Assumptions: He is not

a accustomed to the sight of snakes, is not actively searching for snakes, and does not have an expectation of finding snakes. Upon seeing the object, he will initially exhibit a startle response of a magnitude proportional to his personal disposition towards and experience with snakes.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

Overt Response Features

“high road”

Appraisal Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes A r

• u

s a l Arousal Features “low road” All Stimulus Features “Amygdala” Innate Response Response selection Perception & attention Inhibition

SCENARIO A, CONT’D

• Response 1: He immediately runs away.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

SCENARIO A, CONT’D

• Response 2: He freezes, recognizes that the object is a stick, and resumes his walk

Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes Arousal Arousal C

• n

t r

• l

Intensity Features F e a t u r e s “low road”

“high road”

All Stimulus Features Appraisal “Amygdala” Emotion I n n a t e R e s p

• n

s e Response selection Response search Rational Response Perception & attention I n h i b i t i

• n

Update Prime

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

Startle Reflex Freeze Response Physiological Changes F e a t u r e s “low road”

“high road”

All Stimulus Features Emotion Overt Response Response selection Response search Rational Response Perception & attention Update C

• n

t r

• l

Intensity A r

• u

s a l Arousal Features I n n a t e R e s p

• n

s e I n h i b i t i

• n

Prime Appraisal “Amygdala”

SCENARIO B

• A husband has prepared a late dinner for himself and his wife. Thirty minutes

ago, she called to say that she was leaving the office. She has yet to arrive, although her office is a leisurely five-minute walk across campus from home.

• Assumptions: The husband cares for his wife and her tardiness is anomalous.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE DEMONSTRATION

• A scenario in TacAir-Soar that would be expected to cause fear in a pilot: 1 v. 4.
• The allied fighter, approaching from the west, is flying a CAP mission and will

eventually confront the four enemy planes approaching from the east.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE DEMONSTRATION, CONT’D

Intensity All Stimulus Features Appraisal Emotion Overt Response Response selection Response search Rational Response

• Built a very simplified fear model
• Very simple threat assessment

Am I alone? Are there enemy present? Am I/Are we outnumbered?

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

new bogey appears threat assessment time “I’m alone” take-off new bogey appears new bogey appears

• ne bogey shot down

new bogey appears bug-out begins threshold 2 4 6 8 10

PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE DEMONSTRATION, CONT’D

• In this scenario, the allied fighter will “bug-out” when the threat assessment

exceeds a threshold.

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

ISSUES

• A knowledge-level implementation
• Does not address how fear affects the way we perceive, think or plan
• True threat assessment would be based on the following factors

What the likelihood of harm? What is the expected harm? How long to I have before I must act? How effective could my actions be?

Ronald S. Chong Towards a model of fear in Soar

FUTURE WORK

• GET PHASE 2 FUNDING!!
• Complete implementation of fear with a consideration of Ortony’s work
• Explore an implementation of arousal
• Develop a perceptual attention mechanism
• Implement the emotion of anger

How offended are you at someone due to their actions? How undesirable are the consequences of their actions?

• Look for and implement architectural changes
• Use a domain relevant to the Army
• Get Phase 3 funding