Wheels Within Wheels: Brain-Computer Interfaces as Tools for Artistic Practice as Research

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10285)

Abstract

Practice as research (PaR) is concerned with practice both as a method for inquiry and as evidence of the research process, producing embodied knowledge. It has been proposed that it is the foundational strategy in performative research, a kind of research apart from quantitative and qualitative research, characterized by being expressed using forms of symbolic data different from quantities or words in discursive texts. In this context, practice requires constant reflection upon itself to yield insights that can be used in a never-ending loop of creation. As practice is performed by the body and produces embodied knowledge, tools that allow querying the body during the artistic process may provide information that supports this creation/reflection loop. Previous artistic BCI applications have shown that they are suited to work as introspection tools (affective states, correlation between performed actions and area activations), as the source of raw material to be used in the creative process (raw signal, patterns of activation, band power), and as controllers for artistic instruments. We believe that previous research has laid the groundwork for the use of BCIs as tools in PaR. In this paper, we propose a framework for this and review three examples of previous artistic work using BCIs that illustrate different aspects of said framework.

Keywords

Brain-computer interfaces Practice as research Embodied knowledge 

References

  1. 1.
    Aparicio, A.: Immobilis in mobili: performing arts, BCI, and locked-in syndrome. Brain-Comput. Interfaces 2(2–3), 150–159 (2015). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2326263X.2015.1100366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aparicio, A.: Brain affordances: an approach to design for performers with locked-in syndrome. In: Magnusson, T., Kiefer, C., Duffy, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Live Interfaces, pp. 224–227. REFRAME, Brighton (2016). http://reframe.sussex.ac.uk/reframebooks/archive2016/live-interfaces/ Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cádiz, R., de la Cuadra, P.: Kara: a BCI approach to composition. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Internation Computer Music Conference, pp. 350–354. Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, M., Gonzalez, S., Vasilakos, A., Cao, H., Leung, V.C.M.: Body area networks: a survey. Mob. Netw. Appl. 16(2), 171–193 (2011). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11036-010-0260-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cruz-Garza, J.G., Hernandez, Z.R., Tse, T., Caducoy, E., Abibullaev, B., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: A novel experimental and analytical approach to the multimodal neural decoding of intent during social interaction in freely-behaving human infants. J. Vis. Exp. 104, e53406 (2015). http://www.jove.com/video/53406/a-novel-experimental-analytical-approach-to-multimodal-neural Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eaton, J., Williams, D., Miranda, E.: The space between us: evaluating a multi-user affective brain-computer music interface. Brain-Comput. Interfaces 2(2–3), 103–116 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haseman, B.: A manifesto for performative research. Media Int. Aust. Inc. Culture Policy 118(1), 98–106 (2006). http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X0611800113 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heitlinger, S., Bryan-Kinns, N.: Understanding performative behaviour within content-rich digital live art. Digit. Creativity 24(2), 111–118 (2013). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14626268.2013.808962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kübler, A., Holz, E.M., Riccio, A., Zickler, C., Kaufmann, T., Kleih, S.C., Staiger-Sälzer, P., Desideri, L., Hoogerwerf, E.J., Mattia, D.: The user-centered design as novel perspective for evaluating the usability of BCI-controlled applications. PLoS ONE 9(12), e112392 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laureys, S., Pellas, F., Eeckhout, P.V., Ghorbel, S., Schnakers, C., Perrin, F., Berré, J., Faymonville, M.E., Pantke, K.H., Damas, F., Lamy, M., Moonen, G., Goldman, S.: The locked-in syndrome: what is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? In: Laureys, S. (ed.) The Boundaries of Consciousness: Neurobiology and Neuropathology, Progress in Brain Research, vol. 150, pp. 495–611. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305500347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liberati, G., Pizzimenti, A., Simione, L., Riccio, A., Schettini, F., Inghilleri, M., Mattia, D., Cincotti, F.: Developing brain-computer interfaces from a user-centered perspective: assessing the needs of persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, caregivers, and professionals. Appl. Ergon. 50, 139–146 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucier, A.: Statement on: music for solo performer. In: Biofeedback and the Arts, Results of Early Experiments, pp. 60–61. Aesthetic Research Center of Canada Publications, Vancouver (1976)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    May, S.: Rethinking the cognitive turn. In: May, S. (ed.) Rethinking Practice as Research and the Cognitive Turn, pp. 11–38. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2015). http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137522733_2 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miranda, E.R.: Music neurotechnology: from music of the spheres to music of the hemispheres. Symmetry: Cult. Sci. 26(3), 353–378 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson, R.: Conceptual frameworks for PaR and related pedagogy: from ‘hard facts’ to ‘liquid knowing’. In: Nelson, R. (ed.) Practice as Research in the Arts, pp. 48–70. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2013). http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137282910_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson, R.: From practitioner to practitioner-researcher. In: Nelson, R. (ed.) Practice as Research in the Arts, pp. 23–47. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2013). http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137282910_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson, R.: Introduction: the what, where, when and why of ‘practice as research’. In: Nelson, R. (ed.) Practice as Research in the Arts, pp. 3–22. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2013). http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137282910_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson, R.: Supervision, documentation and other aspects of praxis. In: Nelson, R. (ed.) Practice as Research in the Arts, pp. 71–92. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2013). http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137282910_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schiavone, G., Großekathöfer, U., à Campo, S., Mihajlović, V.: Towards real-time visualization of a juggler’s brain. Brain-Comput. Interfaces 2(2–3), 90–102 (2015). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2326263X.2015.1101656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wadeson, A., Nijholt, A., Nam, C.S.: Artistic brain-computer interfaces: state-of-the-art control mechanisms. Brain-Comput. Interfaces 2(2–3), 70–75 (2015). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2326263X.2015.1103155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolpaw, J.R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D.J., Pfurtscheller, G., Vaughan, T.M.: Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol.: Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113(6), 767–791 (2002). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zioga, P., Chapman, P., Ma, M., Pollick, F.: Enheduanna-a manifesto of falling: first demonstration of a live brain-computer cinema performance with multi-brain BCI interaction for one performer and two audience members. Digit. Creat. (2016). http://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2016.1260593

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación en Tecnologías de Audio, Instituto de MúsicaPontificia Universidad CatólicaSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Centro de Desarrollo de Tecnologías de Inclusión (CEDETi UC)Pontificia Universidad CatólicaSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations