Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T22:03:42.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dancing robots: Social interactions are performed, not depicted

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Guido Orgs Open the ORCID record for Guido Orgs [Opens in a new window]  and
Emily S. Cross Open the ORCID record for Emily S. Cross [Opens in a new window]
Guido Orgs
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London SE14 6NW, UK g.orgs@gold.ac.uk; https://neurolive.info/ Department of Music, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Emily S. Cross
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow G128QB, Glasgow, UK MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia e.cross@westernsydney.edu.au; https://www.soba-lab.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clark and Fischer's depiction hypothesis is based on examples of western mimetic art. Yet social robots do not depict social interactions, but instead perform them. Similarly, dance and performance art do not rely on depiction. Kinematics and expressivity are better predictors of dance aesthetics and of effective social interactions. In this way, social robots are more like dancers than actors.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e40
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovic, M., & Biesenbach, K. (2010). Marina Abramović: The artist is present. Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, R., Berio, D., Mayer, V., Chana, K., Leymarie, F. F., & Orgs, G. (2022). A dot that went for a walk: People prefer lines drawn with human-like kinematics. British Journal of Psychology, 113(1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12527CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chimutengwende, S., & McMann, S. (2021, November). Detective work. Siobhan Davies Studios. https://neurolive.info/Performance-1Google Scholar
Christensen, J. F., Lambrechts, A., & Tsakiris, M. (2019). The Warburg Dance Movement Library – The WADAMO library: A validation study. Perception, 48(1), 26–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006618816631CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cracco, E., Lee, H., van Belle, G., Quenon, L., Haggard, P., Rossion, B., & Orgs, G. (2022). EEG frequency tagging reveals the integration of form and motion cues into the perception of group movement. Cerebral Cortex, 32(13), 2843–2857.10.1093/cercor/bhab385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, E. S., Liepelt, R., de Hamilton, A. F. C., Parkinson, J., Ramsey, R., Stadler, W., & Prinz, W. (2012). Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network. Human Brain Mapping, 33(9), 2238–2254. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, E. S., & Ramsey, R. (2021). Mind meets machine: Towards a cognitive science of human–machine interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer-Lichte, E. (2017). Ästhetik des Performativen (10. Auflage). Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life (Repr). Penguin.Google Scholar
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, M. (1987). A formalist theatre. University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812205442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, H.-T. (2005). Postdramatisches theater. Verlag der Autoren.Google Scholar
Orlandi, A., Cross, E. S., & Orgs, G. (2020). Timing is everything: Dance aesthetics depend on the complexity of movement kinematics. Cognition, 205, 104446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104446CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Press, C. (2011). Action observation and robotic agents: Learning and anthropomorphism. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(6), 1410–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsey, R., & de Hamilton, A. F. C. (2010). Triangles have goals too: Understanding action representation in left aIPS. Neuropsychologia, 48(9), 2773–2776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.04.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimamura, A. P. (2011). Toward a science of aesthetics: Issues and ideas. In Aesthetic science (pp. 3–27). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0010Google Scholar
Vesper, C., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Making oneself predictable: Reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2706-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicary, S., Sperling, M., von Zimmermann, J., Richardson, D. C., & Orgs, G. (2017). Joint action aesthetics. PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0180101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed