Advertisement

Body Editing: Dance Biofeedback Experiments in Apperception

  • Paula GardnerEmail author
  • Hart Sturgeon
  • Lee Jones
  • Stephen Surlin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9732)

Abstract

Body Editing is a dual gesture-based and EEG platform that transforms movement, gesture and brain wave data into visual and audio feedback with which dancers engage improvisationally. The platform, uniquely, offers a creature that responds in emergent fashion to the dancer’s movement, allowing for improvisation. The emergent algorithm directing the creature’s response is informed by Karen Barad’s understanding that intra-action in emergent systems is a form of performativity. The wireless EEG monitor provides intuitive musical sounds corresponding to brain wave data that signal to the dancer moments when she is dancing in an unthought or apperceptive manner, in contrast to moments when she is thinking the interface and thus learning, but not improvising. Dancers describe this experience as performing duets with the emergent creature.

Keywords

Gesture based experience Dance improvisation EEG monitor Interactive media Human computer interaction Emergent behaviour Biometric feedback 

References

  1. Andrejevic, M.: Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  2. Braidotti, R.: The Posthuman. Polity, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Buzsáki, G.: Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chun, W.: Programmed Visions: Software and Memory. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, A.J.: Film music and unfolding narrative. In: Arbib, M.A. (ed.) Language, Music and the Brain. Strüngmann Forum Reports, J. Lupp, series ed., vol. 10, pp. 173 – 201. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2013). ISBN: 978-0-262-01810-4Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, A.J.: How music influences the interpretation of film and video: Approaches from experimental psychology. In: Kendall, R.A., Savage, R.W. (eds.) Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology: Special Issue in Systematic Musicology, vol. 12, pp. 15–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Davies, C.: Osmose. [Art Installation and Video] (1995). http://www.immersence.com/osmose/
  8. Deleuze, G.: Difference and Repetition (1968). Trans. Paul Patton. New York, Colombia University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  9. Galloway, A.R.: Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. MIT press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, P., Wray, B.: From Lab to Living Room: Transhumanist Imaginaries of Consumer Brain Wave Monitors. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, No. 3 (2013). doi:10.7264/N3GQ6VP4Google Scholar
  11. Hagendoorn, I.G.: Cognitive dance improvisation. How study of the motor system can inspire dance (and vice versa). Leonardo 36(3), 221–227 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagendoorn, I.: Emergent patterns in dance improvisation and choreography. In: Minai, A.A., Bar-Yam, Y. (eds.) Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IV, pp. 183–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayles, N.K.: How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Information. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kant, E.: Critique of Pure Reason. Hackett, Indianapolis (1781/1996). Pluhar, W. (Trans.)Google Scholar
  15. Kember, S., Zylinska, J.: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Khut, G.: Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks [Doctoral Exegesis]. University of Wester Sydney, School of Communication Arts, Sydney, Australia (2006). http://georgekhut.com/research/exegesis/
  17. Jung, D., Jensen, M.H., Laing, S., Mayall, J. (2012) Cyclic: an interactive performance combining dance, graphics, music and kinect-technology. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the NZ Chapter of the ACM’s Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 36–43. ACM, July 2012Google Scholar
  18. McRobert, L.: Char Davies’ Immersive Virtual Art and The Essence of Spatiality. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Popper, F.: From Technological to Virtual Art. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Rokeby, D.: Transforming mirrors. Leonardo Electron. Almanac 3(4), 12 (1995)Google Scholar
  21. Rokeby, D.: The construction of experience: Interface as content. In: Digital Illusion: Entertaining the future with high technology, pp. 27–48 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. Rokeby, D.: Home Webpage (2016). URL: http://www.davidrokeby.com/vns.html
  23. Rodrigues, D.G., Grenader, E., Nos, F.D.S., Dall’Agnol, M.D.S., Hansen, T.E., Weibel, N.: MotionDraw: a tool for enhancing art and performance using kinect. In: CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1197–1202. ACM, April 2013Google Scholar
  24. Rose, N.: Neurochemical Selves. Society 41(1), 46–49 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Spadoni, R.: Uncanny Bodies: The Coming of Sound Film and the Origins of the Horror Genre. University of California Press, Berkeley (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Suchman, L.: Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Gardner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hart Sturgeon
    • 1
  • Lee Jones
    • 1
  • Stephen Surlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Mobile LabOCAD UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations