There seems to be a problem with the valence dimension in the Circumplex Model. If valence is the degree to which a state feels pleasant or unpleasant, it does not seem that valence can be considered a dimension, since many different states can be equally pleasant or unpleasant under certain circumstances, and these states would be at various angles not aligned with the valence axis. For example, there are situations where excitement can be just as pleasant as happiness, but excitement is not as aligned with the valence dimension as happiness is. If valence is to be a dimension, it should measure something that changes in one direction only. Relative pleasantness-unpleasantness does not seem to fit the bill, but something like happiness-sadness could. The protovalence dimension in Pathoscape, which measures the range from joy to misery overcomes this problem. Identifying valence with the intensity of states allows valence to retain its meaning as the degree to which a state feels pleasant or unpleasant, while permitting this quality to vary in every direction, not just aligned with the protovalence dimension.

    There also seem to be some problems with the arousal dimension in the Circumplex Model. Since pleasantness and unpleasantness can themselves be arousing in their own right, it is unclear how arousal can serve as an axis orthogonal to valence. If arousal is to be a dimension, it should measure something that changes in one direction independently from the perpendicular dimension. It is also troublesome that the arousal dimension is unipolar and does not cross the valence dimension at the origin, meaning the four regions of the affect space are not Cartesian quadrants. An orthogonal bipolar axis in some sense equivalent to arousal could solve these problems. These problems are overcome in Pathoscape by using a bipolar impulse dimension, which measures a subjective drive to action. This drive is proportional to arousal, but has meaning in both the positive and negative directions. While it's true there is no such thing as negative arousal, there can be negatively directed arousal, which is the role negative impulse can serve here. Since using a protovalence dimension permits valence to vary in any direction, this impulse dimension can now be truly orthogonal to the protovalence dimension, and the two bipolar axes can cross at the origin to yield Cartesian quadrants.

     Because the Circumplex Model does not use Cartesian axes, various problems arise. Besides the inability to resolve the positions of different states that have similar valence and arousal (like anger and fear, Figure 4a), the very meaning of relative positions in the affect space of this model presents a conceptual challenge. Anger and fear can each be more negatively valenced than the other in some circumstances, and likewise, neither is more inherently arousing than the other, so placing the two states relative to one another in the circumplex is somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore, since negative arousal is meaningless in the Circumplex Model, the point of intersection of the two axes at the center of the circumplex is not the common origin of the two dimensions (Figure 4b), and the four regions of the affect space are not the same as the four Cartesian quadrants. In the Circumplex Model, only two Cartesian quadrants are defined. The states that are nearest the true origin in such a circumplex are deactivated or low arousal states, but nevertheless, with the exceptions of dreamless sleep and coma, all states have some positive value for arousal and must therefore be positioned to the right of the true origin. The natural consequence of the four action tendencies spontaneously emerging in correspondence to the four quadrants in Pathoscape, due to the directional interpretation of the bipolar impulse axis, is not possible in this dimensional model, because the arousal axis is not bipolar. Additionally, since the origin is meaningless in this model, there is no apparent means for representing various states mathematically in a convenient way.

Note: the diagrams in Figures 4a and 4b have been reoriented from their original forms to compare them more clearly with Pathoscape. Additionally, in 4b, the 𝑦-axis has been shifted to the left and both axes relabeled, while the arousal dimension has been extended into the negative direction to illustrate the position of the origin relative to the circumplex. The relative positions of words have been preserved.

     The Circumplex Model does not have meaningful quadrants corresponding to the basic attitudes of wanting, not wanting, liking, and not liking. Unlike Pathoscape, the structure of the Circumplex Model does not segregate states into potential and actual modes. The arrangement of states around the circle does not reveal strong patterns or relationships such as the complements, conjugates, and polar opposites that are present in Pathoscape. The Circumplex Model does not indicate characteristics of states related to urgency or agency, or show how such characteristics are related to one another in the differentiation of states. Additionally, the Cirmplex Model does not take into account the differing roles of exogenous and endogenous attention. Finally, the structure of the Circumplex Model does not give any insight into how cognitive appraisals can construct emotional states.

     The Circumplex Model still has much in common with Pathoscape. "Using the statistical tools of factor analysis and multidimensional scaling, a wide variety of psychological assessments have demonstrated the emergence of two underlying, or latent, dimensions of emotion when individuals label and communicate either their own affective states or the affective states of others (Feldman Barrett & Fossum, 2001; Larsen & Diener, 1992; Russell, 1980; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)" (Posner et al., 2005). I believe the results of the statistical techniques employed in their analyses of subjective reports are consistent with the structure of Pathoscape, and that the valence and arousal that are being measured are functionally equivalent to the protovalence and impulse dimensions of Pathoscape, but interpreted differently. Protovalence and impulse dimensions, however, would serve as better axes for a dimensional model. I do not know what standardized affective probes are being used or how subjects are instructed to use them in developing the Circumplex Model, but I believe what they are measuring as arousal in self-reports can be understood better in terms of impulse, a directional drive to action. Unlike general CNS arousal, impulse has meaning as a bipolar dimension, and with proper instructions, subjects should reflect this feature in their reports. Similarly, I think there is a problem with the valence dimension in the Circumplex Model. Joy is not the only measure of hedonic quality, even if it is prototypical. All positive emotions can be equally pleasant even if they are not equally joyous. I think this is a confounding issue with the valence dimension in the Circumplex Model. I believe what they are measuring in self-reports is not actually positive/negative valence, but instead the positive/negative prototypes of valence, i.e. joy and misery, the protovalence dimension in Pathoscape. With these differences in mind, I believe using the same techniques used to develop the Circumplex Model, but substituting protovalence and impulse dimensions instead for valence and arousal, would generate the four quadrants of Pathoscape.