1 On the Concept of Coordinative Structures as Dissipative Structures: I. Theoretical Lines of Convergence

Kügler, P.; Kelso, J. A. Scott; Turvey, M. T.

doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61936-6

Cited by 543 publications

(360 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

334

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If we want to abandon the traditional account in terms of gestures and other optional cues and adopt the KSD principle as an informational basis, we must consider the nature of the human motor system a bit more in depth in order to evaluate the possibilities for deception. We will draw on recent insights in the field as presented by Bernstein (1967), Easton (1972), Greene (1972), Kugler et al (1980), Michaels and Carello (1981, chap. 6), Saltzman (1979), Turvey (1977Turvey ( , 1980, Turvey, Shaw, and Mace (1978), and Saltzman and Kelso (Note 2).…”

Section: Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.

Runeson¹,

Frykholm²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

606

432

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe widespread conviction that perceiving another person must rest on ambiguous and fakeable information is challenged. Arguing from biomechanical necessities inherent in maintaining balance and coping with reactive impulses, we show that the detailed kinematic pattern is specific to an acting person's anatomical makeup and to the working of his or her motor control system. In this way information is potentially available about gender, identity, expectations, intentions, and what the person is in fact doing. We invoke the lawfulness of human movement, as elucidated by recent advances in motor control theory, to demonstrate the virtual impossibility of performing truly deceptive movements and to argue in general terms for the specification power inherent in human kinematics.The outcome of the analysis is subsumed under a principle of kinematic specification of dynamics (KSD), which states that movements specify the causal factors of events. Generally, a linked multiple degrees-of-freedom system does not exhibit substitutability; a change in one of its "input" factors cannot substitute for, or cancel, the multivariable effects of a change in another factor.Six explorative experiments are reported. Displaying humans in action with Johansson's (1973) patch-light technique, we show that (a) the influence of an invisible thrown object on the kinematics of the thrower enable observers to perceive the length of throw; (b) the lead-in movements of a person lifting a box allow perception of what weight the lifter expects; (c) a person lifting a box cannot deceive observers about the weight of the box, only convey the deceptive intention; (d) gender of adults and children in complex activity is recognizable to about 75% of presentations; (e) gender recognition rises to about 85% correct when the observed persons are.not self-conscious about gender; (f) real gender and expressed (acted) gender are simultaneously, but independently, perceived; and (g) observer instructions to judge only "gender" yields results that erroneously indicate a deception effect.We conclude that the experiments have demonstrated the considerable effectiveness of kinematic information in enabling perception of persons and action. Judgments of good precision were often obtained. Some perceived properties were relatively subtle states of the seen person. True conditions were perceived despite deceptive endeavors. The KSD principle therefore appears an appropriate conceptual guide, and the patch-light technique a useful empirical method, for the study of social knowing.The concluding discussion argues that person perception has a dual nature in that true person properties and communicative or deceptive expressions are co-specified in the kinematic pattern. Hence, they constitute alternative foci for perception, and attention can switch freely between them in normal social interaction. Extensive parallels exist between this view of person perception and Gibson's (1979) treatment of pictures and picture perception.Furthermore, we argue that the stu...

show abstract

Section: Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dynamics already knows of some such possibilities; a simple example is a damped mass-spring oscillator (e.g., Kugler et al, 1980).…”

Section: ) Calls the Degrees-of-freedom Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.

Runeson¹,

Frykholm²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

606

432

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, reaching movements involve the coordinated action of a large number of muscles spanning hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist and finger joints. In the course of a reach, these muscles are functionally constrained to form a synergy (Bernstein, 1967) or coordinative structure (Kugler, Kelso & Turvey, 1980;Turvey, 1990). How such synergies are controlled and organized by the central nervous system is a key question in the study of prehension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A vector-integration-to-endpoint model for performance of viapoint movements

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many authors have contributed to develop a theoretical and empirical framework to explain how coordination patterns arise, since the pioneers (Bernstein, 1967; Kugler et al, 1980), to the most modern developments (Kelso, 1995; Haken, 1996; Jirsa and Kelso, 2004), notably assuming a key role for self-organized emergence in brain and behavior. Most of the time, this framework is referred to as coordination dynamics.…”

Section: The Framework Of Elementary Coordination Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for the understanding of the dynamics of social coordination

Lagarde

2013

Front. Neurorobot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way people interact can be examined by looking at the way they move relative to each other. Seeking the principles behind those interactions have consequences potentially related to any type of interpersonal function, far beyond the so-called “motor” processes typically associated with the study of movements, be it perceptive, cognitive, affective, pragmatic, or epistemic. Here, we present the way the framework of coordination dynamics define and addresses the interactive actions in a dyad. We first introduce the basics of pattern formation as the roots of the theoretical approach of coordination dynamics, and then the way this framework may contribute to establish a solution to classify behaviors. Thereafter we review promising empirical results on the dynamics of interpersonal coordination, and finally discuss were to go next to decipher the way the coordination between two people and the way each individual contribute may be disentangled.

show abstract

1 On the Concept of Coordinative Structures as Dissipative Structures: I. Theoretical Lines of Convergence

Cited by 543 publications

References 24 publications

Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.

Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.

A vector-integration-to-endpoint model for performance of viapoint movements

Challenges for the understanding of the dynamics of social coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About