Cognitive Science 41 (6):1555-1588 (2017)

In spite of their striking differences with real-life perception, films are perceived and understood without effort. Cognitive film theory attributes this to the system of continuity editing, a system of editing guidelines outlining the effect of different cuts and edits on spectators. A major principle in this framework is the 180° rule, a rule recommendation that, to avoid spectators’ attention to the editing, two edited shots of the same event or action should not be filmed from angles differing in a way that expectations of spatial continuity are strongly violated. In the present study, we used high-density EEG to explore the neural underpinnings of this rule. In particular, our analysis shows that cuts and edits in general elicit early ERP component indicating the registration of syntactic violations as known from language, music, and action processing. However, continuity edits and cuts-across the line differ from each other regarding later components likely to be indicating the differences in spatial remapping as well as in the degree of conscious awareness of one's own perception. Interestingly, a time–frequency analysis of the occipital alpha rhythm did not support the hypothesis that such differences in processing routes are mainly linked to visual attention. On the contrary, our study found specific modulations of the central mu rhythm ERD as an indicator of sensorimotor activity, suggesting that sensorimotor networks might play an important role. We think that these findings shed new light on current discussions about the role of attention and embodied perception in film perception and should be considered when explaining spectators’ different experience of different kinds of cuts.
Keywords EEG  Action‐perception links  Attentional theory of continuity editing  Cognitive film science  Continuity editing  Cuts‐across‐the‐line  Embodied cognition  Mu‐rhythm
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2017
DOI 10.1111/cogs.12439
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is so Special About Embodied Simulation?Vittorio Gallese & Corrado Sinigaglia - 2011 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15 (11):512-519.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Type Two Cuts, Bad Cuts and Very Bad Cuts.Renling Jin - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (4):1241-1252.
“Editing”: A Productive Metaphor for Regulating CRISPR.Ben Merriman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):62-64.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
Observation Reconsidered.Jerry A. Fodor - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (March):23-43.


Added to PP index

Total views
33 ( #328,722 of 2,448,697 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #224,503 of 2,448,697 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes