This study investigated the issue of subjectivity in dance cognition by examining the amount of agreement in continuous “engagement” responses made by 12 observers to a semi-improvised dance work. Continuous judgments of engagement were collected using the portable Audience Response Facility, which sampled ratings from participants twice a second. Sample-by-sample standard deviation (SD) scores were used as a measure of observer agreement. SD varied from 19% to 34% of the total engagement scale range. Seven regions of good agreement were identified and analyzed. Sections where expectations were not interrupted were more likely to produce good agreement. A further analysis examined the effect of window size (bin width of one sample, up to 11 samples) and alternate measures of observer agreement (50% interpercentile, 90% interpercentile, and median absolute deviation, in addition to SD) on results. Window size made the least difference to the analysis of observer agreement. The results counter the views that dance response is too subjective to be worthy of experimental investigation, or that it lacks subjective, intertextual components.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abu-ShawieshM. O. A. (2008). A simple robust control chart based on MAD. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 4, 102–107.
2.
BondK., & StinsonS. (2007). ‘It's work, work, work, work’: Young people's experiences of effort and engagement in dance. Research in Dance Education, 8, 155–183.
3.
BooneR., & CunninghamJ. G. (1998). Children's decoding of emotion in expressive body movement: The development of cue attunement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1007–1016.
4.
BooneR., & CunninghamJ. G. (2001). Children's expression of emotional meaning in music through expressive body movement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 21–41.
5.
Calvo-MerinoB.EhrenbergS.LeungD., & HaggardP. (2010). Experts see it all: Configural effects in action observation. Psychological Research, 74, 400–406.
6.
CamurriA.LagerlöfI., & VolpeG. (2003). Recognizing emotion from dance movement: Comparison of spectator recognition and automated techniques. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 213–225.
7.
CamurriA.MazzarinoB.RicchettiM.TimmersR., & VolpeG. (2003). Multimodal analysis of expressive gesture in music and dance performances. In CamurriA. & VolpeG. (Eds.), Gesture-based communication in human-computer interaction (pp. 20–39). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
8.
ChaoS.-P.YangS.-N., & LinT.-G. (2006). An LMA-effort simulator with dynamics parameters for motion capture animation. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 17, 167–177.
9.
CritienN., & OllisS. (2006). Multiple engagement of self in the development of talent in professional dancers. Research in Dance Education, 7, 179–200.
10.
deLahuntaS. (2004). Choreography and cognition: A joint research project, art and science. Proceedings of the XVIII Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 169–173). Lisbon: IAEA2004.
11.
DemeijerM. (1989). The contribution of general features of body movement to the attribution of emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 247–268.
12.
DesmondJ. C. (Ed.). (1997). Meaning in motion: New cultural studies of dance.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13.
EgermannH.SutherlandM. E.GreweO.NagelF.KopiezR., & AltenmüllerE. (2011). Does music listening in a social context alter experience? A physiological and psychological perspective on emotion. Musicae Scientiae, 15, 307–323.
14.
FosterS. (1986). Reading dancing: Bodies and subjects in contemporary American choreography.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15.
FrancesR., & BruchonschweitzerM. (1983). Musical expression and body expression. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 587–595.
16.
GabrielssonA., & LindströmE. (2001). The influence of musical structure on emotional expression. In JuslinP. N. & SlobodaJ. A. (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 223–248). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
GlassR. (2005). Observer response to contemporary dance. In GroveR.StevensC., & McKechnieS. (Eds.), Thinking in four dimensions: Creativity and cognition in contemporary dance (pp. 107–121). Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
18.
HannaJ. L. (2008). A nonverbal language for imagining and learning: Dance education in K-12 curriculum. Educational Researcher, 37, 491–506.
19.
JuslinP. N., & VästfjällD. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 559–575.
20.
LindstromE.CamurriA.FribergA.VolpeG., & RinmanM. L. (2005). Affect, attitude and evaluation of multisensory performances. Journal of New Music Research, 34, 69–86.
21.
MontepareJ. M.GoldsteinS. B., & ClausenA. (1987). The identification of emotions from gait information. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 33–42.
22.
RortyR. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
SchubertE. (2001). Continuous measurement of self-report emotional response to music. In JuslinP. N. & SlobodaJ. A. (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 393–414). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
SchubertE. (2002). Correlation analysis of continuous emotional response to music: Correcting for the effects of serial correlation. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 213–236.
25.
SchubertE. (2007). When is an event in a time-series significant? In SchubertE.BuckleyK.EliottR.KoboroffB.ChenJ., & StevensC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science (pp. 135–138). Sydney, Australia: ARC Research Network in Human Communication Science (HCSNet), University of Western Sydney.
26.
SchubertE. (2010). Continuous self-report methods. In JuslinP. N. & SlobodaJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 223–253). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
SchubertE. (2012). Reliability issues regarding the beginning, middle and end of continuous emotion ratings to music. Psychology of Music. Advance online publication (February 8). doi: 10.1177/0305735611430079
StevensC.GlassR.SchubertE.ChenJ., & WinskelH. (2007). Methods for measuring audience reactions. In SchubertE.BuckleyK.EliottR.KoboroffB.ChenJ., & StevensC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science (pp. 155–158). Sydney, Australia: ARC Research Network in Human Communication Science (HCSNet), University of Western Sydney.
30.
StevensC., & McKechnieS. (2005). Thinking in action: Thought made visible in contemporary dance. Cognitive Processing, 6, 243–252.
31.
StevensC.SchubertE.MorrisR. HaszardFrearM.ChenJ.HealeyS. (2009). The portable Audience Response Facility (pARF): PDAs that record real-time and instantaneous data during live or recorded performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 800–813.
32.
StevensC. J.SchubertE.WangS.KroosC., & HalovicS. (2009). Moving with and without music: Scaling and lapsing in time in the performance of contemporary dance. Music Perception, 26, 451–464.
33.
StevensC. J.VincsK., & SchubertE. (2009). Measuring audience response on-line: An evaluation of the portable audience response facility (pARF). In StevensC.SchubertE.KruithofB.BuckleyK. & FazioS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Music Communication Science (ICoMCS2) (pp. 100–103). Sydney, Australia: HCSNet, University of Western Sydney.
34.
StevensC.WinskelH.HowellC.VidalL-M.LatimerC., & Milne-HomeJ. (2010). Perceiving dance: Schematic expectations guide experts' scanning of a contemporary dance film. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, 14, 19–25.
35.
VincsK.SchubertE., & StevensC. (2007). Engagement and the “gem” moment: How do dance students view and respond to dance in real time?Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science, Canberra, Australia, October 25–28.
36.
VincsK.StevensC., & SchubertE. (2010). Effects of observer experience on continuous measures of engagement with a contemporary dance work. In ChristensenW.SchierE., & SuttonJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science: ASCS09.Sydney, Australia: Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science.
37.
WachowiczF.StevensC. J., & ByronT. (2011). Working memory for human movement: Effects of balance and experience on recall of body configurations. Dance Research, 29, 448–466.
