Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 95Action Observation and SynchronizationDiversity and Impact of DanceAesthetic Perception and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coordinated Interpersonal Behaviour in Collective Dance Improvisation: The Aesthetics of Kinaesthetic Togetherness

Open access
Himberg, Tommi, Laroche, Julien, Bigé, Romain, Buchkowski, Megan, Bachrach, Asaf·2018·Behavioral Sciences
DOI 10.3390/bs8020023PMC PMC5836006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Collective dance improvisation (e.g., traditional and social dancing, contact improvisation) is a participatory, relational and embodied art form which eschews standard concepts in aesthetics. We present our ongoing research into the mechanisms underlying the lived experience of “togetherness” associated with such practices. Togetherness in collective dance improvisation is kinaesthetic (based on movement and its perception), and so can be simultaneously addressed from the perspective of the performers and the spectators, and be measured. We utilise these multiple levels of description: the first-person, phenomenological level of personal experiences, the third-person description of brain and body activity, and the level of interpersonal dynamics. Here, we describe two of our protocols: a four-person mirror game and a ‘rhythm battle’ dance improvisation score. Using an interpersonal closeness measure after the practice, we correlate subjective sense of individual/group connectedness and observed levels of in-group temporal synchronization. We propose that kinaesthetic togetherness, or interpersonal resonance, is integral to the aesthetic pleasure of the participants and spectators, and that embodied feeling of togetherness might play a role more generally in aesthetic experience in the performing arts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bs8020023

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Quantity of Motion in pre- (top) and post-improvisation mirror games in pilot 1; (B) Cross-correlation functions in pilot 1, indicating that group-level coordination was absent in pre-, but present in post-improvisation game; (C) Participants were standing in a circle, one arm and index finger extended. Frame from pilot 1, the movement trace shows finger trajectories for 1 s; (D) Distribution of maximum pairwise correlation coefficients in pilot 2. Red crosses are means, green dots medians, and blue dots represent the data points (pairwise CC’s).
Figure 1 (A) Quantity of Motion in pre- (top) and post-improvisation mirror games in pilot 1; (B) Cross-correlation functions in pilot 1, indicating that group-level coordination was absent in pre-, but present in post-improvisation game; (C) Participants were standing in a circle, one arm and index finger extended. Frame from pilot 1, the movement trace shows finger trajectories for 1 s; (D) Distribution of maximum pairwise correlation coefficients in pilot 2. Red crosses are means, green dots medians, and blue dots represent the data points (pairwise CC’s).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 (A) Structure of the rhythm battle protocol. (B) Average tempi in each of the segments. Data from the second group. Error bars represent averages of individual participant’s tempo variability. (C) Tempo similarity matrix from the second group. Yellow represents high similarity and dark blue dissimilarity. Values are normalised. (D) Correlations between tempo similarity matrices and group membership (blue), and tablet-IOS scores and tempo similarity (purple). Red dotted line indicates the p=0.05 threshold. Data from second group.
Figure 2 (A) Structure of the rhythm battle protocol. (B) Average tempi in each of the segments. Data from the second group. Error bars represent averages of individual participant’s tempo variability. (C) Tempo similarity matrix from the second group. Yellow represents high similarity and dark blue dissimilarity. Values are normalised. (D) Correlations between tempo similarity matrices and group membership (blue), and tablet-IOS scores and tempo similarity (purple). Red dotted line indicates the p=0.05 threshold. Data from second group.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Network visualisations of the tempo similarity matrices in stage 1 (top) and stage 4 (bottom), in the game for second group. Node colors indicate group membership, thickness and also length of the edges reflect the tempo similarity with thicker and shorter edges reflecting closer tempo similarities.
Figure 3 Network visualisations of the tempo similarity matrices in stage 1 (top) and stage 4 (bottom), in the game for second group. Node colors indicate group membership, thickness and also length of the edges reflect the tempo similarity with thicker and shorter edges reflecting closer tempo similarities.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 77 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Novack, C.J. (1990). Sharing the Dance: Contact Improvisation and American Culture, University of Wisconsin Press.
  2. Kant, I., and Meredith, J.C. (2007). Critique of Judgement, Oxford University Press.
  3. Amighi, J.K. (1999). The Meaning of Movement: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives of the Kestenberg Movement Profile, Brunner-Routledge.
  4. 1994, The Mindreading System: New directions for research, Cah. Psychol. Cogn. Curr. Psychol. Cogn., 13, 724
  5. Maturana, H.R., and Varela, F.J. (1991). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Springer Science & Business Media.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Himberg, T., Laroche, J., Bigé, R., Buchkowski, M., & Bachrach, A.
Affiliations
  • Université Paris 8 (FR)
  • Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Bachrach, Asaf
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-02-09
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
23
ISSN
2076-328X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/bs8020023
PMC
PMC5836006
OpenAlex
W2794439841
Cited by
85
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-0080, ANR-10)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Diversity and Impact of Dance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
aesthetic experience, embodied experience, interpersonal synchrony, temporal synchronization, relationship closeness, mirror game, contact improvisation, social dance, phenomenology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.