Both sound and odour are also capable of eliciting strong emotions - as you are familiar with LeDoux, you'll know that the amygdala receives signals from all parts of the brain and body, and is capable of influencing emotions/behaviours in reaction to sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

Ominous odors: olfactory control of instinctive fear and aggression in mice

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23415829

Canine anxieties and phobias: an update on separation anxiety and noise aversions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18672155

In terms of whether emotion can be present without any stimulus, my feeling is that yes, it can be - I think often, people feel an emotion without being aware of the trigger, although this does not mean there was no trigger, and that sometimes there is no trigger, with the emotion being generated by some dysfunction, but I have no references for this :)

Hope this helps!

First comes perception

...or cognition and then emotion

Why not stick to Damatio?

I am sticking to Damasio, but wanted other views. I have been using the term image to cover all sensory events, but realize that in writing in such a way, I am just confusing to others. I have revised my theory to the following statement: image/sensory input lead to emotion and emotion is the impetus for action.

If you know better than Damasio without proving where and how he's wrong, I rest my case.

Before are the sensory stimuli which reach and activate the different correlated zones o the brain, immediately in sequence are elicited the emotions (in same way automatically, but the neurophysiological activity is more complex) ) and finally the cognition defines recognitions, correlations, memory connections, verbal or motor answers, etc.

So Anna, if I understand correctly, the sensory stimuli activate the zones of the brain dedicated to each sense and then the emotions are elicited. The frontal brain then defines the nature of the sensory input and whether it needs to be acted on or not?

Hi,

The model of Damasio (Convergence/Divergence zones) predict that the actions would emerge from the hierarchichal integration of multimodal sensory signals. Activity in those higher level areas produces a feedback reconstruction of the stimuli that produced it (according to previous experience). This feedback activity can take the form of images (visual images ;) ) or motor patterns.

if you want you can take a look at this paper where I proposed an implementation of the model using self organizing maps, we applied it to a humanoid robot. Emotions are still absent from this model which is a pure sensory-motor integration, however you can have the whole system modulated by something like allostatic control.

Article Multi-modal convergence maps: From body schema and self-repr...

I think that is reductive, in terms of so complex activities which include perception, emotion and cognition, define exactly the “before” and the “after”. What is sure is that the perception is the origin of the sequence. The progression of functional activation depends of a combination of awareness, attention level, earliest recognition, previous experiences, personal interest, familiarity (memory). Is this combination controlled and supervised by “frontal lobes”? Of course if we consider that the frontal lobes are part of a complex and interconnected network including also many other cortical and subcortical areas. Day by day the functional and neurophysiological researches on cerebral functions, and above all on thalamus-cortical system, suggest caution in correlate specific functions to specific areas.

I would even modulate the answer of Anna "What is sure is that the perception is the origin of the sequence. ", the influence of the perception on the whole brain activity represent less that 5% of the information processed by early areas of the cortex. Most of the activity comes from feedback streams. Our knowledge of the world is constantly shaping the perception we have about it...

The perception-action loop doesn't have any "start" or "end", it is a chicken and egg problem ;)

Perfetct! Many thanks to Stephane who underlines this essential point. Intentionally I avoid to quote also this fundamental aspect of brain activity. The "semplification" was made just to define the "possible " sequence between perception, emotion and cognition. Not more. But if the discussion would be more qualified in terms of neurophysiology and information processes I suspect that it will be necessary amplified the general discussion at less superficial level

As an acting teacher, I need to simplify as much as possible. It has been my experience, and that of many actors, acting pedagogues, and directors, that a strong image excites emotions in the actor that can then lead to the necessary element for all drama, action. I understand that this is a chicken and egg problem, however, young actors attempt to manufacture emotion mechanically which is not very satisfying in the context of a scene. They also try to be active in the scene with no rationale beyond the rational. Therefore, my job is to teach them to work with images and sensory elements that will elicit emotion which is for the actor, simply fuel for action. I am trying to solve a very specific problem of acting: that of tying impulse to language.

Would you please clarify, how do they manufacture emotion mechanically and how this manfactured emotion differs from what you want them to achieve?

Well, you have images that have been rated regarding the emotions they elicit. You can check for example the IAPS database: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Affective_Picture_System)

I guess we could elicit emotions also based on human postures, through mirror system activity (think about a defensive or aggresive posture for example).

To assist in simplifying and ground some of these answers into readily applicable principles, whether in teaching or therapy, it might be useful to look at the co-emergence model of reinforcement (e.g., Cayoun, 2011). I posted a chapter from this book on my page at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259331605_The_Co-emergence_Model_of_Reinforcement_A_Rationale_for_Mindfulness_Integration

The basic components of the model are proposed to process information as follows: first, Sensory Perception arises, whether triggered by internally-generated stimuli (including images from imagination or memory) or externally-generated stimuli (images in the environment). As mentioned by Stephan Lalle earlier, even new stimuli may be perceived as known by association.

Second, information is filtered by the Evaluation system (partly for threat recognition). This occurs even though it does not necessitate cognitive processing when the stimulus has been categorised and the category has been reinforced over time, both cognitively and neurologically--when it is "automatic".

Third, whether the evaluation is conscious and slow or subconscious and fast (less than 300ms), the next component is Interoception--feeling sensations in the body. The model posits that body sensations co-emerge spontaneously with Evaluation—again, consciously or not. The "nature" of the evaluation interacts with the "feeling system" in two ways. Firstly, the more the evaluation of the stimulus is associated with information that has personal importance (associated with "I", "me"), the more intense co-emerging body-sensations will be. Secondly, the more the evaluation is associated with information that is agreeable, the more pleasant co-emerging body-sensations will be—similarly, disagreeableness leads to unpleasant sensations.

Fourth, the Reaction system is triggered, depending on the intensity and type (hedonic tone) of body sensation (you can read more on this in the chapter mentioned). The probably of a reaction is a function of the intensity of the sensation. The type of reaction or non-reactive action is a function of the pleasantness of the sensations. Unless we are trained otherwise, intense pleasant sensations lead to craving and intense unpleasant sensations lead to aversion. Accordingly, the model proposes that we neither react to the stimulus nor to its evaluation; we react because of the sensation--the consequence of evaluation. Unless we feel, consciously or not, the experience of the stimulus (say images) is not a personal experience.

This proposed neuro-phenomenological model takes into account the essence of operant conditioning and extends its scope by proposing that all conditioning principles rely on operant learning and the locus of reinforcement is interoception (body sensations), mediated by the insular and somatosensory cortices.

Chapter The Co‐Emergence Model of Reinforcement: A Rationale for Min...

Here an except from my Dissertation:

The topic of this dissertation focuses on human emotional expression as it has been explored in the field of the performing arts. The field of the performing arts, in particular acting, may offer significant insight into emotional behavior. James’ (1890/1950) theory of emotional processing emphasized the significance of somatic responses in emotional processing. Cannon’s (1927) theory of emotional processing emphasized the significance of cognitive responses in emotional processing. These two theories of emotional processing laid the foundation upon which more modern theories of emotion have been built (Moors, 2009). Interestingly, the concepts and techniques, which actors use to gain significant control over their emotional processes, may correspond to both James’ and Cannon’s theories of emotional processing. Therefore, the main purpose of this dissertation is to define the techniques, actors use to initiate and control artificial episodes, in psychological terms. These definitions will then be used as a means of describing emotional processes and measuring emotional behavior.

The fields of the performing arts and psychology share a common subject: human behavior. The motivation to do so differs significantly as do their methods of research. Nevertheless, the obvious interests individuals show in the performing arts is a mark of the quality of the research and training techniques derived in the performing arts. The training technique that has been given the name Method Acting involves a number of psychological concepts. Chekhov (1991) argued that every physical exercise that an actor takes part in is at the same time a psychological exercise.

Method acting may be define as a technique in which actors learn to cognitively store the sensations that have resulted from emotional reactions of real Emotionally Provoking Stimuli (EPS) (Easty, 1981). After the actor has successfully learned and become consciously aware of exactly how a particular sensation feels, he may then be able to trigger a specific emotional episode by activating the learned sensation. Furthermore, in order to project an emotion that an actor has never truly experienced, he must learn to distort and direct the learned sensations. In doing so he must establish a duel consciousness, in which the actor’s conscious follows the consciousness of the character his is portraying (Stansilovski, 1964). After this training is complete the actor is armed with many various stored sensations. By either initiating a Conscious Somatic Impluse (CSI) or a Conscious cognitive Impulse (CCI), the actor is able to trigger a specific emotional episode (Easty, 1982; Chekhov, 2002). This impulse results in a somatic expression, which may be divided in to five factors: Mimic, Posture, Gesture, Action, and Speech.

For example, if an actor wanted to project the emotion of fear, he may have learned to widen his eyes, which may be described as a significant change in mimic. In doing this, his chest may rise, as he takes in a breath and holds it, which may significantly change his posture and/or gesture. These somatic responses may then trigger other somatic responses, which may affect the factors of action and/or voice as well. If a value were to be given to each of these five factors the sum of these values would represent a bodily state. In the performing arts this bodily state is referred to as Status (Johnstone, 1981). Similarly, Damasio (2006) found that visceral somatic reactions may mark the commencement of an emotional episode. That is, a significant change in an individuals Status, measured of the Status scale outlined in this dissertation, may be an indication of the commencement of an emotional episode. As such, the Somatic Marker Hypothesis supports the validity of the effectiveness of the Method Acting Technique.

The concept of Status may be used from both the perspective of emotional perception as well as emotional projection. From the perspective of emotional projection, one may find that an individual, who has learned to maintain a high awareness of his Status, may be able to communicate more effectively. However this work focuses on status from the perspective of emotional perception. That is, one asks oneself, “Has an individual begun an emotional state in a given moment? And if so, then what emotion is this person possibly feeling at this given moment?“

Essentially the concept of Status breaks down how one may perceive the emotional expression of others into four nonverbal factors, mimic, gesture, posture, and action, and a fifth factor of voice, which will not be addressed in this work as to only concentrate on nonverbal emotional communication. Changes in an individual’s Status may be perceived in respects to the dimensions. The status between man and man; man and environment; and, man and object. Psychometrically speaking then, Status is the rated comparison between and individual and his environment, other individual, and object relations. The Sum Status is then defined as an individual’s status on each of these three dimensions: personal dimension, environmental dimension, and the object dimension. For each of these three dimensions, an individuals Status may be calculated by rating each of the four factors on each on the three dimensions yielding a 3 x 4 Matrix. As such, Status may be used to rate individuals over all emotional expression or used to rate his emotional expression in terms of a specific dimension and/or factor.

In order to illustrate how the concept of Status may be used as a means of describing emotional processes, a measurement instrument based on this concept will be created and correlated to the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), which is used in psychological research to measure emotional expression (Sayette, Cohn, Wertz, Perrott, & Perrott, 2001). The FACS measures facial muscle movements on a nominative scale, in which various combinations of scores have been significantly correlated to various emotions. Correlations between the FACS and Status may bring fourth interesting knowledge. Being that status is a full body scale of emotional behavior and the FACS concentrated on only the mimic of an individual, significant correlation may be found that indicate that the factors of gesture, posture, and action are also indicative of specific emotions. By implementing controlled emotion provoking stimuli, measurements of the participants will be taken during the moment of the somatic marker; therefore, correlations between the FACS and Status measurements may be an indication of the significance of the role Status my play in emotional processing.

There would be no images, no emotions, neither perceptions without action (at least reflexes or movements, gestures…). What characterizes living beings is their activity which permits them to sense, to perceive, to be emotional, to enact images or to imagine…

We were not born to think; we were not born to perceive; we were not born to move; instead, because we were born, we simply must move! This is immediately evident at birth as manifest in the simple latching-on and suck reflexes; for example, deficits in these basic reflexes predict neurodevelopmental disorders and later cognitive outcomes. The brain evolved to meet the needs of interactive behavior; and interactive behavior is all about survival; cortical operations, which include "perceptions" and "images," initially develop and operate slowly; the vertebrate brain evolved to meet the needs of interacting with a dynamically changing environment; because of slow "feedback" and transmitting information to the musculature, the brain developed anticipatory control mechanisms based upon the prediction of sensorimotor outcomes; the cerebro-cerebellar system anticipates sensorimotor outcomes; the cortico-basal ganglia system anticipates reward values, salience or relevance information; the combination of these systems allows for cognitive control, a slowly developing process; the work of the child is to develop control over the motor system in order to guide adaptive interactive behavior. Interaction generates reinforcement value of perceptions, and "emotion" and "motivation" are all fundamentally integrated through interaction; in this way, all cognition, perceptions, and images are all "embodied." Interactions are forms of broadly defined "procedures." As we develop and reflect upon these activities and procedures, we can generate declarative knowledge to guide behavior; we interact adaptively because of automatic behaviors driven by positive and negative outcomes, while these behaviors alternate with episodes of cognitive control to solve novel problems in adaptation or to adjust previously acquired behaviors to meet changing demands. The frontal cortices provide the procedural system with only "crude" representations of solutions that are modified to become more efficient through the cortico-basal ganglia and cerebro-cerebellar systems; behavior is retained in the same circuits that were activated as the behavior unfolded to meet environmental demands; decision-making is not the sole property of the prefrontal cortex. The Research Gate system allows for one attachment per question; those interested should see Cisek and Kalaska, 2010; Pezzulo, 2011; Ashby, 2014; Ito, 2008;2011; Koziol, 2014; none of these papers are "duplicate" information, so to understand this interactive system it is necessary to consider all; and this is just an introduction, a starting point. To simplify these matters by compartmentalizing them into "categories" such as perception, imagination, etc., is convenient for classification purposes only, because adhering to these over-arching constructs actually reifies and constrains our ability to understand an interactive system. To simplify into the original question does not do justice to the beauty of nature's solutions to adaptation, and..., you might not really be able to "teach" what you'd like to teach about acting through the fragmentation of simplification; it's not a "chicken or the egg" issue; it is a problem of understanding the reality of interactive behavior; the remarkability of this neurobiologically situated system is it's consistency that cuts across 500 million years of phylogeny; the only thing neuroscience has on it's side is evolution! It's all about understanding the essence and purpose of movement, how it develops, and how to control it through adaptive interactive behavior. While this reply might initially seem off-target, I'm offering a different perspective, a "think outside the box" viewpoint for approaching the question.

It may depend: If you are a creationist or evolutionist:-)

In the first case: image (of the/a creator), in the second, I gather - as Domenico said -, action. My formula is: 1) beliefs (learned) - 2) thoughts (influenced by our beliefs) - action (influenced by thoughts).

I would say that although this question entails deep philosophical thought, I am inclined to think that image comes first, then action, then emotion. For example, if a man see a beautiful woman, obviously it is the image that comes first, then his senses would act as a function of the image, thus producing emotion.

@Mohamed Benmerikhi

Why do you relate seeing to image and not to action? And where does an image come from? Isn't it a result of a production,that is an action?

Yes indeed, Image can be the production of action or a set of actions, it would all depend on where you draw the line. Temporal precedence would enable us to go as far back as the beginning of time, then we must resort either to metaphysics or speculation to resolve the issue. But I get your point.

My definition of action in working with actors is limited to "that thing which is done to change another person in some way". From my observation, action begins in the body and is then translated to language rather than full physical expression. For actors, an action must have its test in the partner or partners to whom it is directed. Other physical activity while considered action in a larger sense is not helpful dramatically.