Transcript Intention and Reactivity

Neuroaesthetics of dance
Patrick Haggard
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience
University College London
Funding: Leverhulme Trust, Royal Society, EU, Wellcome Trust, ESRC
Colleagues: Beatriz Calvo, Daniel Glaser, Corinne Jola, Dick Passingham, Deborah
Bull, Emma Maguire, Tom Sapsford, Shantel Ehrenberg, Elena Daprati, Marco
Iosa, Paolo D’Oto
Disclaimer 1: Observer Approach
Dance requires:
•
Performer
•
Observer
•
(Possible other stuff)
Disclaimer 1: Observer Approach
Dance requires:
•
Performer
•
Observer
•
(Possible other stuff)
I will focus here!
Disclaimer 2: Scientific Approach
Advantages
•
•
•
•
Simplify
Measure
Explain
Predict
Disadvantages
• More than sum of parts
• Misses the subjective
element, what “I” feel
• Culture-bound
Observe, clarify, hypothesise, but also appreciate
Reduce, but also respect
Aesthetics: Definition
Study of something’s:
•
Artistic or potential artistic value:
•
Beauty
•
Ability to induce a range of mental
states, including pleasure, various
emotions, awe etc.
Aesthetics: Definition
Study of something’s:
•
•
•
Artistic or potential artistic value:
Definition by practice
Beauty
Definition by objective properties
Ability to induce a range of mental
states, including pleasure, various
emotions, awe etc.
Definition by mental effects
Roadmap
1. Aesthetic preference
2. Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
3. Aesthetic drivers of artistic change
Roadmap
1. Aesthetic preference
2. Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
3. Aesthetic drivers of artistic change
1. Aesthetic preference
•
Objectivist/Platonist aesthetics
–
–
•
Intrinsic aesthetic value
Aesthetics is a property of things
Subjectivist/relativist aesthetics
–
–
–
No intrinsic aesthetic value
Only personal liking
Aesthetics is not a property of things, but of how
we see things
1. Aesthetic preference
•
Aesthetic preference: Which do you like most?
•
Universal application, high face validity
•
Low explanatory value and efficiency:
does not say why you like it?
•
Subjectivists: express personal aesthetic taste
•
Objectivists: find universal preferences
1. Aesthetic preference
•
Preference judgements give experimental control
1. Aesthetic preference
•
Preference judgements give experimental control
Golden section:
1.618 : 1
Aesthetic preference: balance
• “Balance”
•
Aesthetic value depends on configurations,
relations between parts and wholes
Balance
(McManus et al., 1985)
Balance
Group
A
Group
B
Balance
Group
A
Group
B


Balance
Group
A
Group
B




Balance
Some body configurations may be especially pleasing
Dance aesthetics may reflect a structured visual pattern
Dance may exploit basic brain mechanisms of pattern perception
Aesthetic Preference: “Mere exposure”
•
Familiar things are preferred to unfamiliar
•
Basis of aesthetic subjectivity:
–
–
Different previous experience, different evaluation
Basis of cultural relativism aestheticism
•
Exploration vs. exploitation
•
Challenge for artists
Ballet
Capoeira
Calvo-Merino et al.,
Cerebral Cortex, 2005
Subjects
Expert
Non-expert
Capoeira dancers
Non-expert
Expert
Non-expert controls
Non-expert
Non-expert
Ballet dancers
Aesthetic preference for dance moves
Calvo-Merino et al., Consciousness and Cognition, in review
Ballet
Capoeira
Subjects
Expert
Non-expert
Capoeira dancers
Non-expert
Expert
Non-expert controls
Non-expert
Non-expert
Ballet dancers
Neural correlates of liking
•
•
•
•
6 naïve subjects, retested after brain scanning
24 ballet and capoiera moves
“How much do you like this move?” (1-5)
Which brain areas correlate with average liking?
•
•
Bilateral Visual
Right premotor
•
“embodied”
aesthetics?
a
b
“Neurotargeting”
- Project neuroaesthetic activations back into stimulus space
•
People liked this, right premotor cortex active
•
People disliked this, right premotor cortex inactive
“Neurotargeting”
- Project neuroaesthetic activations back into stimulus space
•
People liked this, right premotor cortex active
•
People disliked this, right premotor cortex inactive
“Neurotargeting”
- Project neuroaesthetic activations back into stimulus space
•
People liked this, right premotor cortex active
•
People disliked this, right premotor cortex inactive
Aesthetic preferences: conclusion
•
Neural correlates of average preferences
•
Key parameters for liking:
–
–
•
Overall amount of movement
Jumping
Future work:
–
–
–
More people, more brain areas
Other aesthetic dimensions beyond liking
Neural correlates of liking in experts?
Roadmap
1. Aesthetic preference
2. Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
3. Aesthetic drivers of artistic change
Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
•
Pure dance movement stimuli
•
Point-light display
•
Sequence of two dance moves
•
Aesthetic preference task
•
“Which move do you prefer?
“Same or different?”
Visual
Perception
“Which one do you prefer?”
Aesthetic
Evaluation
Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
“Same or different?”
•
Visual
Perception
“Which one do you prefer?”
Aesthetic
Evaluation
Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
What brain circuits underlie aesthetic evaluation?
“Same or different?”
•
•
Naïve
subjects
Expert
dancers
Visual
Perception
“Which one do you prefer?”
Aesthetic
Evaluation
Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
What brain circuits underlie aesthetic evaluation?
Are these circuits influenced by experience?
Results
Aesthetic preference -Visual discrimination
A
L&R parietal:
Attention?
Mirror system?
Sensory cortex?
Naïve subjects
Expert dancers
B
R temporal:
Memory?
Results
Aesthetic preference -Visual discrimination
A
L&R parietal:
Attention?
Mirror system?
Sensory cortex?
Naïve subjects
Expert dancers
B
R temporal:
Memory?
Conclusions
• Aesthetic network:
– attention and embodied feeling (SI)
• Clear expertise effects
– dancers’ aesthetic judgements are
based on reference memory
– internal stored representation of a
perfect pirouette?
Implications
• Aesthetic appreciation can be learned, and
taught
• Brain basis for ‘connoisseurship’
• Explains effects of culture and familiarity
Roadmap
1. Aesthetic preference
2. Brain basis of aesthetic judgement
3. Aesthetic drivers of artistic change
Aesthetic geometry
• Balance and pattern central to aesthetic preference
• Body ‘line’ in dance may be an aesthetic pattern
• Historical evolution of body line
– Royal Ballet archive 1942-2004
• Fixed position in choreography
– Developpe, arabesque etc
– Rose Adagio, Sleeping beauty
ANATOMICAL REFERENCES AND DERIVED STIMULI
A. Location of markers and segments
finger tip
wrist
forehead
nose
+ elbow
shoulder
sternum
navel
hip
knee
ankle
tip of the toes
B. Schematic Figures
Right
finger tip
Left
finger
tip
Left toe
Right
Toe
ANATOMICAL REFERENCES AND DERIVED STIMULI
A. Location of markers and segments
finger tip
wrist
forehead
nose
+ elbow
shoulder
sternum
navel
hip
knee
ankle
tip of the toes
B. Schematic Figures
Right
finger tip
Left
finger
tip
Left toe
Right
Toe
ARABESQUE PENCHEE
1962
1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
190

180
170
160
150
140
130
r=0.8306
120
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
Years
B
DEVELOPPE A LA SECONDE
190
1962

1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
170
150
130
110
r=0.7793
r=0.7877
90
1945
1955
1965
1975
Years
1985
1995
2005
ARABESQUE PENCHEE
1962
1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
190

180
170
160
150
140
130
r=0.8306
120
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
Years
B
DEVELOPPE A LA SECONDE
190
1962

1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
170
150
130
110
r=0.7793
r=0.7877
90
1945
1955
1965
1975
Years
1985
1995
2005
Results
•
Body line becoming more vertical
•
Why?
Results
•
Body line becoming more vertical
•
Why?
1. Dancer fitness?
–
But, both easy/supported and hard/unsupported
show similar trend towards vertical
Results
•
Body line becoming more vertical
•
Why?
1. Dancer fitness?
–
But, both easy/supported and hard/unsupported
show similar trend towards vertical
2. Evolution of aesthetic value?
–
–
Standardise stick figures
Aesthetic preference testing, 12 naïve subjects
Schematic Figures
Outline polygon
Schematic Figures
Right
finger
tip
Left
finger
tip
Right
finger
tip
Left
finger tip
Left
toe
Right
Toe
Left
Toe
Right
Toe
Stick figures
Polygons
p=0.004, r=0.400
p=0.006, r=0.387
Stick figures
Polygons
p=0.004, r=0.400
p=0.006, r=0.387
Conclusions
• Gradual aesthetic evolution within an art form
• Socio-aesthetic feedback loop
Artist
(Choreographer,
Dancer)
Evaluative
Feedback
Observer
Overall Conclusions
1. Aesthetic experience can be studied scientifically
2. Aesthetic experience has neural correlates
3. Brain network for aesthetic evaluation
4. Aesthetic appreciation can be learned/taught
5. Aesthetics is part of rich socio-cultural exchange
End
1. Seeing body postures
Inversion effect
(% accuracy difference)
1. Seeing body configuration
EBA
V1
SPL
vPMc
1. Seeing body configuration
•
•
Dance postures are configurations of the body
The human brain sees dance as ‘visual wholes’
•
•
The premotor cortex underlies this way of seeing
Configural vision may be learned
50
Body inversion effect:
upright-inverted (ms)
40
30
20
Ballet postures
10
Asian dance postures
0
-10
Naïve subjects
Expert Dancers
-20
-30
Groups
Roadmap
1. Seeing body postures
2. Liking body movements
3. Evolving aesthetics?
2. Liking body movements
Ballet
Capoeira
Subjects
Expert
Non-expert
Capoeira dancers
Non-expert
Expert
Non-expert controls
Non-expert
Non-expert
Ballet dancers
Expert - non-expert
Experts show more
sensorimotor brain
activity than nonexperts
Mirror neuron areas
• Expert dancers see dance differently from non-experts
• Because they have stronger sensorimotor responses to
watching dance
2. Sensorimotor Liking
Ballet
Capoeira
Subjects
Expert
Non-expert
Capoeira dancers
Non-expert
Expert
Non-expert controls
Non-expert
Non-expert
Ballet dancers
2. Sensorimotor Liking
•
•
•
•
6 naïve subjects, retested after brain scanning
24 ballet and capoiera moves
“How much do you like this move?” (1-5)
Find brain areas that correlate with liking?
•
•
Visual areas
Right premotor
a
b
“Neurotargeting”
•
People liked this, right premotor cortex active
•
People disliked this, right premotor cortex inactive
2. Sensorimotor Liking
•
•
Aesthetic evaluation of dance has measurable
neural correlates
Dance may be aesthetically successful because of
specific effects on the brain:
‘All visual art must obey the laws of the visual system’
(Zeki and Lamb, 1994)
•
But, note the problems
–
–
Average of 6 subjects, not universal
‘Liking’ is not aesthetically rich: other aesthetics?
Roadmap
1. Seeing body postures
2. Liking body movements
3. Evolving aesthetics?
3. Evolving aesthetics
•
•
Does dance change over time? How? Why?
Same choreography
–
–
–
•
•
Different dancers
Different aesthetics
Different communicative messages
Rose Adagio, Sleeping Beauty
1946-2003. Royal Opera House Archive
A
ARABESQUE PENCHEE
1962
1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
190

180
170
160
150
140
130
120
1945
r=0.8348
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
Years
B
DEVELOPPE A LA SECONDE
1962

1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
190
170
150
130
110
r=0.7793
90
1945
1955
1965
1975
Years
1985
1995
2005
3. Evolving aesthetics
•
Physical fitness or Aesthetic evolution?
•

Aesthetic judgement
12 naïve observers
50 stick figures

•

50 boundary shapes
ARABESQUE
C
1962

1979
1996
2003
Leg Elevation (deg)
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
1945
r=0.6473
1955
1965
1975
Years
1985
1995
2005
3. Evolving aesthetics
•
Does dance change over time? How? Why
•
Interpretations of a single choreographic moment
have changed
–
–
–
Dancer fitness
Artistic interpretation
Aesthetic effect
Overall conclusion
•
Performing art is looking at bodies in motion
(plus many other aspects not yet studied)
•
Dance uses special ‘ways of seeing’ in the brain
•
Identified visual and motor brain systems for dance
•
These systems contribute to aesthetic experience
•
End
1. Seeing body postures
1. Seeing body postures
1. Seeing body postures
•
Are dance postures also seen as configurations?
–
•
Or as individual body parts?
Which brain areas underlie configural vision?
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)
V1
X
Configural
System
Body part
System
Reduced body inversion effect
Upright
V1
V1
V1
Configural
System
Local
System
Configural
System
Local
System
Configural
System
Local
System
V1
V1
V1
Inverted
Predicted effect
Configural
System
X
Inversion Effect
Local
System
Upright > Inverted
Configural
System
X
No
Inversion Effect
Local
System
Upright = Inverted
Configural
System
X
Increased
Inversion Effect
Local
System
Upright >> Inverted
Scientific Approach
Advantages
•
•
•
•
Simplify
Measure
Explain
Predict
Disadvantages
• More than sum of parts
• Misses the subjective
element, what “I” feel
• Culture-bound
Observe, clarify, hypothesise, but appreciate
Reduce, but also respect
Proprioception:
Sensory information about the state of
the body
Receptor neurons in:
Muscles
Skin
Joints
Sensations from muscles
Proprioception
• Key role in maintaining posture
• Can be trained, superior in dancers
• Gives a coherent sense of body
– Primary level: muscle length/joint angle
– Secondary level: spatial configuration of
the whole body (body scheme)
Coherent sense of body
De Vignemont, Ehrsson & Haggard (2005)

Biceps
Control
Triceps
Where is my hand?
Jola, Davis & Haggard (in prep.)
x
y
Where is my hand?
Jola, Davis & Haggard (in prep.)
Proprioceptive:
Proprioceptive
Matching
(PP)
Visual:
Proprioceptive
Matching
(VP)
VisuoProprioceptive:
Proprioceptive
Matching
(VPP)
PP VP VPP
PP VP VPP
PP VP VPP
Expert Dancers
Normal subjects
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
-10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
-10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
PP
0
VP
40
VPP
50
Conclusions
• Proprioception is superior in dancers
– Lower matching error
• Coherent body image: Secondary Proprioception
– Dancers have a less fragmented body image
– Common egocentre, “core stability”
• Future directions…
– Proprioceptive representation of leg position?
– Stability of proprioceptive representation over time?
Doing dance:
internal sensation
1. Proprioception
(2. Motor prediction)
Watching dance:
external sensation
3. Motor simulation
4. Neuro-aesthetics
Premotor cortex: “Mirror” neurons
Active when a
monkey performs a
specific action
Or watches another
person doing the
action
• Does a similar brain system exist in man?
• We understand the actions of others by simulation
Sensorimotor responses to dance:
Watching actions you can do or can’t do…
Dance videos
Ballet
Capoeira
Subjects
Ballet dancers
Capoeira dancers
Expert
Non-expert
Non-expert
Expert
Expert - non-expert
Experts show more
sensorimotor brain
activity than nonexperts
Mirror neuron areas
• Expert dancers see dance differently from non-experts
• Because they are better able to simulate what they see
• Strong sensorimotor responses to watching dance
Visual vs. motor experience in acquired skills
Set of gender-specific
ballet moves
Female moves
Male moves
Subjects
Female
dancers
Male
dancers
Visual
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Gender specific
actions
Male
Female
Female
Female
Visual
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Male
Subjects
Visual
familiarity
Gender-common
actions
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Motor expertise
+ gender congruence

Male
Motor
familiarity
Visual
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
Motor
familiarity
gender congruence
=
Pure motor expertise effect
Pure motor expertise effect: mirror system
1. Left IPS: -42, 57, 48
2. Left dPMC: -48, 6, 45
SPM t: interactions: gender-specific – gender-common
Conclusions
• A strong motor component to watching dance
• Watching dance activates the same brain structures as
performing the corresponding dance moves
• Potential application in dance training/rehabilitation?
• Depressing for the rest of us?
Doing dance:
internal sensation
1. Proprioception
(2. Motor prediction)
Watching dance:
external sensation
3. Motor simulation
4. Neuro-aesthetics
Why does dance have aesthetic appeal?
• Dance is universal in human culture
• Aesthetic appeal of dance may exploit natural
patterns of brain activity
• 3 aspects of aesthetic response
• Visual
• Emotional
• Sensorimotor
lowest rated
7 naïve subjects
Consensus ratings
weakpowerful
dislike
-like
Aesthetic dimensions
(Berlyne, 1970)
dullinteresting
simplecomplex
highest rated
Consensus ratings
Strongly Liked
a1.
a2.
Strongly Disliked
b1.
b2.
a.
b.
Motor
Visual
Neural correlates of aesthetic judgement
Best
Best
Worst
Worst
Premotor cortex tuning
Best
Worst
a.
b.
Visual cortex tuning
Best
Worst
a.
b.
Conclusions
• Not so depressing for the rest of us…
• Premotor cortex activity correlates with aesthetic
evaluation
• Degree of movement has strong influence on aesthetic
evaluation
• Strong motor component to dance aesthetics
Aesthetics as visual balance
(McManus et al., 1985)
Group
A
Group
B
Group
A
Group
B


Group
A
Group
B




Aesthetic balance
Some body configurations
are especially pleasing
Aesthetics may reflect a
balanced visual whole
Do dance postures exploit
basic visual brain mechanisms?
“Line”
What brain areas correlate
with aesthetic evaluations?
Aesthetic geometry
• Body ‘line’ as aesthetic pattern
• Historical evolution of line
• Fixed position in choreography
– Developpe from Rose Adagio, Sleeping beauty
– Thanks to ROH archive
• How and why has this position changed in 75 years?
Aesthetic geometry
Angle L
defined by the two legs, fit line based
[the larger the angle, the higher goes the dynamic leg]
judge1
judge2
judge3
180
165
deg
150
135
120
105
90
1956-1979
1986-1996
2002-2004
Aesthetic geometry
Conclusions
• Body geometry changes, even for fixed choreography
– Dancer fitness?
– Evolution towards more aesthetic position?
• ‘Line’ may be getting more vertical
• Future directions:
– Are some body lines aesthetically preferred?
– Do these preferences reflect tuning of specific brain areas?
• Thank you
Viewing wholes
Different!
(EASY)
Er, Different!
(Much Harder)
Inversion Effect:
Reaction Time Difference
Viewing wholes
Different!
(EASY)
Er, Different?
(Much Harder)
Inversion Effect:
Reaction Time Difference
Larger for bodies/faces than
Non-biological stimuli
Visual form: Inversion Effect
ms
0
500
600
1100
Response:
“Same” or
“Different”
Visual form: Inversion Effect
ms
0
500
600
1100
Response:
“Same” or
“Different”
Inverted bodies:
- judgement is harder, slower
- body processed as an overall visual form
Dance postures & control stimuli
"Same or Different" Reaction Times
720
700
ms
680
dance
660
640
620
control
600
580
upright
inverted
Next step: making “Pseudopostures”
Bharata Natyam
posture
Ballet
posture
Top BN
Bottom Ballet
Questions:
Has choreography evolved to prefer ‘global’ body positions?
Does looking globally make things look aesthetically better?
3. The paradox of vision
•
•
Vision is the key sense for the audience
Vision raises several computational problems for
the dancer’s brain:
1. Too slow to contribute to movement control
2. No clear relation to motor commands
3. Over-rides proprioception
•
•
Helpful for reinforcement, not for online control
How should dancers use mirrors?
2. Prediction
When we move fast, the brain can’t wait for
the body to detect and respond to an error
The problem of feedback delays
Sensory delay: 25 ms
Motor delay: 25 ms
The brain’s solution:
Predict the consequences of our
movements as we make them
- don’t wait for sensory feedback
• Brain sends command to leg muscles
• Cerebellum receives copy of command
• … predicts how the body will move
• … asks for a corrected command
• Total time < 20 ms !
Prediction is important for:
• Speed of movement
• Accuracy and coordination
• Learning depends on changing connections in
the cerebellum
• Genetic factors limit predictive learning ability?
Doing ballet
1. Proprioception
2. Motor prediction
Watching ballet
3. Motor simulation
4. Neuro-aesthetics
Background
• Cortical facilitation during action observation
– Fadiga (1995), Strafella & Paus, Aziz-Zadeh
– Action understanding vs low-level resonance?
• All studies assume derivative simulation
– Predict effects for viewing others’ actions are a reduced
version of effects for viewing one’s own actions
– (Patuzzo et al., Maeda et al.)
• Self/other comparison generally involves several visual
confounds