Limits...
Dance experience sculpts aesthetic perception and related brain circuits.

Kirsch LP, Dawson K, Cross ES - Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. (2015)

Bottom Line: This study directly compared how learning to embody an action impacts the neural response when watching and aesthetically evaluating the same action.Results suggest that after experience, participants most enjoy watching those dance sequences they danced or observed.Moreover, brain regions involved in mediating the aesthetic response shift from subcortical regions associated with dopaminergic reward processing to posterior temporal regions involved in processing multisensory integration, emotion, and biological motion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, North Wales, United Kingdom.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

(A) Mean dance scores for all the sequences performed during the dance test on day 5 for each training condition. Significant differences between the PVA and other conditions were found, as well as a difference between the VA and UNT conditions. PVA, physical + visual + audio training; VA, visual + audio training; A, audio-only training; UNT, untrained sequences. **P < 0.001 and *P < 0.05. (B) Differences between pre- and posttraining ratings, for questions concerning liking and reproducibility. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. (C) Relationship between reproducibility and liking ratings, pre- and posttraining, for all training conditions. The right-side panel indicates the Pearson correlation factor and P value for each training condition. (D) Relationship between subjective and objective physical scores, illustrated by correlations between reproducibility ratings and physical performance scores pre- and posttraining for PVA sequences. The panel on the right side of the plots specifies the Pearson correlation factor and P value for the PVA training condition pre- and posttraining.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4402020&req=5

fig02: (A) Mean dance scores for all the sequences performed during the dance test on day 5 for each training condition. Significant differences between the PVA and other conditions were found, as well as a difference between the VA and UNT conditions. PVA, physical + visual + audio training; VA, visual + audio training; A, audio-only training; UNT, untrained sequences. **P < 0.001 and *P < 0.05. (B) Differences between pre- and posttraining ratings, for questions concerning liking and reproducibility. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. (C) Relationship between reproducibility and liking ratings, pre- and posttraining, for all training conditions. The right-side panel indicates the Pearson correlation factor and P value for each training condition. (D) Relationship between subjective and objective physical scores, illustrated by correlations between reproducibility ratings and physical performance scores pre- and posttraining for PVA sequences. The panel on the right side of the plots specifies the Pearson correlation factor and P value for the PVA training condition pre- and posttraining.

Mentions: The first group-level analysis evaluated brain regions that were more active when observing a dancer's body in motion versus standing still on day 1. Such a contrast enables the localization of brain regions responsive to dance per se and not extraneous features that are not of interest for this study (e.g., dancers’ identity, background). Regions that emerged from this contrast, illustrated in Figure2A, created a task-specific mask for all subsequent analyses reported in this paper, at the P < 0.01, k = 10 voxel level.


Dance experience sculpts aesthetic perception and related brain circuits.

Kirsch LP, Dawson K, Cross ES - Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. (2015)

(A) Mean dance scores for all the sequences performed during the dance test on day 5 for each training condition. Significant differences between the PVA and other conditions were found, as well as a difference between the VA and UNT conditions. PVA, physical + visual + audio training; VA, visual + audio training; A, audio-only training; UNT, untrained sequences. **P < 0.001 and *P < 0.05. (B) Differences between pre- and posttraining ratings, for questions concerning liking and reproducibility. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. (C) Relationship between reproducibility and liking ratings, pre- and posttraining, for all training conditions. The right-side panel indicates the Pearson correlation factor and P value for each training condition. (D) Relationship between subjective and objective physical scores, illustrated by correlations between reproducibility ratings and physical performance scores pre- and posttraining for PVA sequences. The panel on the right side of the plots specifies the Pearson correlation factor and P value for the PVA training condition pre- and posttraining.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4402020&req=5

fig02: (A) Mean dance scores for all the sequences performed during the dance test on day 5 for each training condition. Significant differences between the PVA and other conditions were found, as well as a difference between the VA and UNT conditions. PVA, physical + visual + audio training; VA, visual + audio training; A, audio-only training; UNT, untrained sequences. **P < 0.001 and *P < 0.05. (B) Differences between pre- and posttraining ratings, for questions concerning liking and reproducibility. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. (C) Relationship between reproducibility and liking ratings, pre- and posttraining, for all training conditions. The right-side panel indicates the Pearson correlation factor and P value for each training condition. (D) Relationship between subjective and objective physical scores, illustrated by correlations between reproducibility ratings and physical performance scores pre- and posttraining for PVA sequences. The panel on the right side of the plots specifies the Pearson correlation factor and P value for the PVA training condition pre- and posttraining.
Mentions: The first group-level analysis evaluated brain regions that were more active when observing a dancer's body in motion versus standing still on day 1. Such a contrast enables the localization of brain regions responsive to dance per se and not extraneous features that are not of interest for this study (e.g., dancers’ identity, background). Regions that emerged from this contrast, illustrated in Figure2A, created a task-specific mask for all subsequent analyses reported in this paper, at the P < 0.01, k = 10 voxel level.

Bottom Line: This study directly compared how learning to embody an action impacts the neural response when watching and aesthetically evaluating the same action.Results suggest that after experience, participants most enjoy watching those dance sequences they danced or observed.Moreover, brain regions involved in mediating the aesthetic response shift from subcortical regions associated with dopaminergic reward processing to posterior temporal regions involved in processing multisensory integration, emotion, and biological motion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, North Wales, United Kingdom.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus