4.2 Article

Towards a sensorimotor aesthetics of performing art

期刊

CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 911-922

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.11.003

关键词

neuroaesthetics; dance; visual; sensorimotor; fMRI; aesthetic dimensions; ballet; capoeira; mirror system

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/F000367/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F000367/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The field of neuroaesthetics attempts to identify the brain processes underlying aesthetic experience, including but not limited to beauty. Previous neuroaesthetic studies have focussed largely on paintings and music, while performing arts such as dance have been less studied. Nevertheless, increasing knowledge of the neural mechanisms that represent the bodies and actions of others, and which contribute to empathy, make a neuroaesthetics of dance timely. Here, we present the first neuroscientific study of aesthetic perception in the context of the performing arts. We investigated brain areas whose activity during passive viewing of dance stimuli was related to later, independent aesthetic evaluation of the same stimuli. Brain activity of six naive male subjects was measured using fMRI, while they watched 24 dance movements, and performed an irrelevant task. In a later session, participants rated each movement along a set of established aesthetic dimensions. The ratings were used to identify brain regions that were more active when viewing moves that received high average ratings than moves that received low average ratings. This contrast revealed bilateral activity in the occipital cortices and in right premotor cortex. Our results suggest a possible role of visual and sensorimotor brain areas in an automatic aesthetic response to dance. This sensorimotor response may explain why dance is widely appreciated in so many human cultures. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据