↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanical metrics of aesthetic perception in dance

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biomechanical metrics of aesthetic perception in dance
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00221-015-4424-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaw Bronner, James Shippen

Abstract

The brain may be tuned to evaluate aesthetic perception through perceptual chunking when we observe the grace of the dancer. We modelled biomechanical metrics to explain biological determinants of aesthetic perception in dance. Eighteen expert (EXP) and intermediate (INT) dancers performed développé arabesque in three conditions: (1) slow tempo, (2) slow tempo with relevé, and (3) fast tempo. To compare biomechanical metrics of kinematic data, we calculated intra-excursion variability, principal component analysis (PCA), and dimensionless jerk for the gesture limb. Observers, all trained dancers, viewed motion capture stick figures of the trials and ranked each for aesthetic (1) proficiency and (2) movement smoothness. Statistical analyses included group by condition repeated-measures ANOVA for metric data; Mann-Whitney U rank and Friedman's rank tests for nonparametric rank data; Spearman's rho correlations to compare aesthetic rankings and metrics; and linear regression to examine which metric best quantified observers' aesthetic rankings, p < 0.05. The goodness of fit of the proposed models was determined using Akaike information criteria. Aesthetic proficiency and smoothness rankings of the dance movements revealed differences between groups and condition, p < 0.0001. EXP dancers were rated more aesthetically proficient than INT dancers. The slow and fast conditions were judged more aesthetically proficient than slow with relevé (p < 0.0001). Of the metrics, PCA best captured the differences due to group and condition. PCA also provided the most parsimonious model to explain aesthetic proficiency and smoothness rankings. By permitting organization of large data sets into simpler groupings, PCA may mirror the phenomenon of chunking in which the brain combines sensory motor elements into integrated units of behaviour. In this representation, the chunk of information which is remembered, and to which the observer reacts, is the elemental mode shape of the motion rather than physical displacements. This suggests that reduction in redundant information to a simplistic dimensionality is related to the experienced observer's aesthetic perception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Student > Master 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Psychology 5 7%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,402,296
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,013
of 3,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,354
of 266,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#27
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.