Movement Perception

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-84
Author(s):  
I.P. Christensen ◽  
H.L. Wagner ◽  
M.S. Halliday
Keyword(s):  
1979 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Austin H. Riesen
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Huschka

Since Ballet Frankfurt was reconstituted as the Forsythe Company in 2004, William Forsythe has increasingly explored formats of installation art practice. Works such as Human Writes (in collaboration with Kendall Thomas, 2005) and You made me a monster (2005) develop within an interactive and intermedial space and experiment with new ways to experience the production and perception of movement. “Performance installation” is the new term for this intertwined process of movement production and movement perception. The choreographic composition itself grows out of procedures of performative sensing by the dancers, which spreads to onlookers. This multiplex awareness of movement for which the dancer's body is the medium constitutes what I shall call the “media-body” as an essential moment of performance installation as choreographic event. Compared to earlier Forsythe installations—which he called “choreographic objects”—like White Bouncy Castle (1997), City of Abstracts (2000), or Scattered Crowd (2002), with their accessible spaces of movement (in White Bouncy Castle the spectator was a visitor moving about freely inside a white inflatable castle, and City of Abstracts featured choreographic projections of movement on large screens in open spaces) performance installations take place squarely in the theatrical context: in theater lobbies, exhibit halls, or accessible public performance spaces where dancers and the audience come together in a mutually shared yet operationally divided space that leads them into an interactive relationship.


2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 141-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Jackson ◽  
Nuala Brady ◽  
Fred Cummins ◽  
Kenneth Monaghan

Perception ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
V S Ramachandran ◽  
V Madhusudhan Rao ◽  
T R Vidyasagar

1966 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-245
Author(s):  
G. A. HORRIDGE

1. A crab is held at the centre of an illuminated stationary striped drum or any visual field with strong contrasts. After a time all lights are turned off and the drum is moved in the dark. The light is restored when the drum is stationary in its new position. The animal responds by a movement of the eyes. 2. Stimuli of 0.5° over a dark period of 2 min. or 1° over 15 min. give a response. The response depends on the angle of the drum movement, and is slower in performance and less in total amount for longer periods of darkness. 3. On re-illumination the movement of the eye relative to the stationary drum is such that the visual field moves across the eye in the opposite direction to the eye's movement, but nevertheless the perception of small drum oscillations is not impaired. 4. When the visual feedback loop is opened by clamping the seeing eye and painting over the moving one, eye movements can be greater than drum movements, as in movement perception. Comparison of calculated with experimental closed-loop conditions shows that in the memory experiment there is no attenuation or amplification in the visual feedback loop. 5. Perception of very slow movements and stabilization of eye position could, but do not necessarily, depend on this accurate but short-lived directional memory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document