ro | en
Argument › No. 15/2023

Exploring and discretizing the latent space of algorithmic imagination through affective computation

https://doi.org/10.54508/Argument.15.11

  • / “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO
  • / “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO

Abstract

The field of architecture has undergone many transformations in recent years, given the integration of generative algorithms and artificial intelligence systems that mark the shift from tools designed to do to tools designed to think. Thus, computation is no longer just a design tool, but aims to become the design method in itself. This article aims to address one of the implications of the “second digital turn” (Carpo, 2017) in architecture, addressing the paradox of choice that derives from the exploration of the latent space of algorithmic imagination by the human factor, in the post-generative stages of the design process. This study brings to light the potential of affective computing as a tool that can be employed to address this matter, and within this method the opportunities of the ERP component are distinctly highlighted.

One of the challenges of generative design is the paradox of choice given by the excess of generated solutions, which makes architects become overwhelmed, confused and over-stimulated in their decision making in the face of the abundance of solutions produced by the algorithmic and generative phases. The authors address this issue by examining how emotions currently support decision-making and how they can be interpreted in the digital environment through “affective computing” (Picard, 1997) which is a Human-Computer Interface (HCI) based on the capture of physiological electroencephalographic EEG signals. Within this paradigm, the Event-Related Potential (ERP) component has been identified to access unconscious decisions within the visual semantic discretization process.

The paper articulates on the hypothesis of relocating the decision control in favour of the human factor through affective computation in generative design processes. This method is capable to reduce the “execution gulf” and the “evaluation gulf” (Hutchins, 1985), i.e. the articulatory distance between concept and evaluation. The study will analyze the premises underlying this hypothesis and test an accessible HCI model based on an EMOTIV EPOC X headset, validating the functionality of this proposed framework.

Keywords

Generative Design, Latent Space, Choice Paradox, Decision Making, Affective Computation

Download

References

  1. Andia, A. & Spiegelhalter, T. (2014). Post-Parametric Automation in Design and Construction. Artech House
  2. Barsan-Pipu, C., Sleiman, N., Moldovan (2010). Affective Computing For Generating Virtual Procedural Environments Using Game Technologies.40th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture: Distributed
    Proximities, ACADIA 2020 ; 1:120-129, 2020.
  3. Badcock, N. A., Preece, K. A., de Wit, B., Glenn, K., Fieder, N., Thie, J., & McArthur, G. (2015). Validation of the Emotiv EPOC EEG system for research quality auditory event-related potentials in children. PeerJ, 3, e907.
  4. Banaei, M., Hatami J., Yazdanfar A., Gramann K. (2017). Walking through Architectural Spaces: The Impact of Interior Forms on Human Brain Dynamics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11: 1–14.
  5. Barham, M.P., Clark, G.M., Hayden, M.J., Enticott, P.G., Conduit, R., & Lum, J.A. (2017). Acquiring research-grade ERPs on a shoestring budget: A comparison of a modified Emotiv and commercial SynAmps EEG system. Psychophysiology, 54 9, 1393-1404 .
  6. Bechara A., Damasio H., Tranel D., Damasio A.R. (1997). Deciding Advantageously before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy. In Science New Series, 275(5304), 1293–1295.
  7. Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  8. Bolojan, D., Vermisso, E., Yousif, S. (2022, 9-15 aprilie). Is Language All We Need? In van Ameijde, J., Gardner, N., Hyun, K. H., Luo, D., Sheth, U. (Eds.). Post-Carbon Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural
    Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2022). Volume 1: (353-362)
  9. Carpo, M. (2017). The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence. MIT Press.
  10. Chen, X. J., & Kwak, Y. (2022). Contribution of the Sensorimotor Beta Oscillations and the Cortico-Basal Ganglia-Thalamic Circuitry During Value-Based Decision Making: A Simultaneous EEG-FMRI Investigation. In NeuroImage, 368(4)
  11. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, And The Human Brain. New York. G.P. Putnam.
  12. Damasio, A.R., Tranel, D. & Damasio, H. (1991). Somatic Markers and the Guidance of Behaviour: Theory and Preliminary Testing. In H.S. Levin, H.M. Eisenberg & A.L. Benton (Eds.). Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction 217–229: Oxford University Press.
  13. Diniz, N., Signore, M. D., & Melendez, F. (2020). Data, Matter, Design: Strategies in Computational Design. Routledge.
  14. Duvinage, M., Castermans, T., Petieau, M., Hoellinger, T., Cheron, G., & Dutoit, T. (2013). Performance of the Emotiv Epoc headset for P300-based applications. Biomedical engineering online, 12, 56.
  15. Elster, J. (1996). Rationality and the Emotions. In Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society vol. 106(438), 1386-1397.
  16. Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P. Williams, P, Alba, J. W., Chartrand, T., L., Huber, J., Kardes, F. R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J. E., Shiv, B. & Tavassoli, N. T. (2002). Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer Choice. In Marketing Letters 13, 269–279.
  17. Finn, E. (2017). What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing, MIT Press.
  18. Guger, C., Daban, S., Sellers, E., Holzner, C., Krausz, G., Carabalona, R., et al. (2009). How many People Are Able to Control a P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface (Bci)? Neurosci. Lett. 462(1), 94-98.
  19. Harmon-Jones, E., Allen, J.J.B., (1997). Behavioral Activation Sensitivity and Resting Frontal EEG Asymmetry: Covariation of Putative Indicators Related to Risk for Mood Disorders. In Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106(1), 159–163
  20. Hutchins, Edwin L. James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Normad. (1985). Direct Manipulation Interfaces. In Human-Computer Interaction 1(4), 311-338.
  21. Libet, B. (2004). Mind Time. Cambridge. Harvard University Press
  22. Licklider, J. C. R. (1960).Man-Computer Symbiosis. In IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1, 4–11.
  23. Leach, N. (2018). Design in The Age of AI. In Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 6(2), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-20180202.
  24. Watanabe,M. (2022, October 11), Aitect. Makato Sei Watanabe. https://www.makoto-architect.com/aitect.html
  25. Makstutis, G. (2018). Design Process in Architecture - From Concept to Completion. Londra. Laurence King.
  26. Minsky, M. L. (1988). The Society of Mind. New York. Simon & Schuster.
    Palmer, B., Nasman, V. T., & Wilson, G. F. (1994). Task Decision Difficulty: Effects on ERPs in a Same-Different Letter Classification Task. In Biological psychology, 38(2-3), 199–214.
  27. Pfister, H.R., & Böhm, G. (2008). The Multiplicity of Emotions: a Framework of Emotional Functions in Decision Making. In Judgment And Decision Making, 3(1), 5-17.
  28. Picard, R. W. (1995). Affective Computing. In M.I.T Media Laboratory, Perceptual Computing Section Technical Report No. 321, 1–16.
  29. Salma, N. (2017). EEG Signal Analysis in Decision Making. [Unpublished master dissertation]
  30. Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and Emotional Controls of Cognition. In Psychological Review, 74(1), 29–39.
  31. Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing Versus Satisfacing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197.
  32. Serby, H., Yom-Tov, E., and Inbar, G. F. (2005). An Improved P300-Based Brain-Computer Interface. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 13, 89–98.
  33. Sutton, S.K., Davidson, R.J., (1997). Prefrontal Brain Asymmetry: a Biological Substrate of the Behavioral Approach and Inhibition Systems. In Psychological Science 8. 204–210.
  34. Terzidis, K. (2014). Permutation Design: Buildings, Texts, and Contexts. Routledge.
  35. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. Bantam Books.
  36. Verweij, M., & Damasio, A. (2019). The Somatic Marker Hypothesis and Political Life. In Redlawsk, D. (ed) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.928
  37. Wiggins, G. A. (2019). A Framework for Description, Analysis and Comparison of Creative Systems - 2.4.1 A Universe of Possibilities. In Tony, V. & Amílcar, C. F. (Eds.) Computational Creativity. The Philosophy and Engineering of Autonomously Creative Systems, Springer, 25-30.
  38. Walter, W. G., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V. J., McCALLUM, W. C., and Winter, A. L. (1964). Contingent Negative Variation : An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain. Nature 203, 380–384.
  39. Woodman, G. F. (2010). A Brief Introduction to the Use of Event-Related Potentials in Studies of Perception and Attention. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 2031–2046.
  40. Wundt, W. M. (1874). Principles of physiological psychology (E. B. Titchener, Trans.). Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.
  41. Yang, Q., Cruz-Garza, J.G., & Kalantari, S. (2023). MindSculpt: Using a Brain-Computer Interface to Enable Designers to Create Diverse Geometries by Thinking. ArXiv, abs/2303.03632.
  42. Zaltman, G, (2000). Consumer Researchers: Take a Hike!. In Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4) 423-428.