Building on the one hand on the link between immersion and peripheral vision, and on the other hand on the visually induced perceptual illusion of self-motion (vection), the author examines synesthesia through the relationship between peripheral vision and proprioception. The author maintains that immersion in installations results from multimodal perception grounded in motor-sensory activity, and he considers installations and scenographies in which the viewer’s peripheral vision, balance, motion and posture play an important role.

My contribution to critical and artistic dialogues within the intersecting fields of dance and screen-based images consists in examining the role of peripheral vision in the perception of dance in artistic contexts where projections are used. There is, as I will point out, sufficient evidence from phenomenological and neuro-physiological accounts to conclude that motion perception is affected by peripheral visual perceptions. Consequently, it is maintained that the spectator's experience of dance, especially when screens are involved, depends to some degree on peripheral visual perception, which in turn contributes to proprioception. In the installations that I will discuss here, the viewer's proprioception, or ability to sense his or her body's position, motion, and equilibrium, is addressed according to the way the screens are placed in relation to him or her. As with staged dances where projections are used, we will concern ourselves with the relationship of the dancer to the screen as seen from the seated viewer's perspective. Projection screen installations combining live dance performance will also be looked into. My interpretation of "screendance" therefore does not refer to dance film or dance video. Instead, I investigate the perceptual contexts where the screen can be said to be part of the scenography and, likewise, the projection part of the choreography. With digital multimedia, the distinction between scenography and choreography can be blurry, and many artists aim precisely to meld them together. What constitutes a screen now encompasses much more than the standard white flat rectangle.The question of image content is certainly not irrelevant here, but it is not my main concern. What is of prime importance in my analysis is the dynamic value of the images that fall on the viewer's retina: how the visual field is filled and how that affects the viewer's proprioception. The question I wish to address most precisely is how peripheral visual perception informs proprioception in such a way that it allows the spectator to feel movements that are not of his or her making as if they were his or hers. 1 Before we go any further, a primary distinction must be made between two different yet complementary vision systems, central vision and peripheral vision. Although one learns in high school about the "rods" and the "cones"-the latter's sensitivity to form and color, and the former's to contrast and movement-little mention is ever made of them again. Were it not for the needs of flight simulators, the research into peripheral vision would certainly not be as rich as it is now. 2 What has emerged from such research is deeper knowledge concerning the intimate connection between vision and balance. The Central Nervous System (CNS) relies on visual cues from the environment in order for us to not only locate ourselves in it, but to move in it. The CNS has no direct access to the world; it therefore must make