Dance as mindful movement: a perspective from motor learning and predictive coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining "dance" is challenging, because many distinct classes of human movement may be considered dance in a broad sense. Although the most obvious category is rhythmic dancing to a musical beat, other categories of expressive movement such as dance improvisation, pantomime, tai chi, or Japanese butoh suggest that a more inclusive conception of human dance is needed. Here we propose that a specific type of conscious awareness plays an overarching role in most forms of expressive movement and can be used to define dance (in the broad sense). We can briefly summarize this broader notion of dance as "mindful movement." However, to make this conception explicit and testable, we need an empirically verifiable characterization of "mindful movement." We propose such a characterization in terms of predictive coding and procedural learning theory: mindful movement involves a "suspension" of automatization. When first learning a new motor skill, we are highly conscious of our movements, and this is reflected in neural activation patterns. As skill increases, automatization and overlearning occurs, involving a progressive suppression of conscious awareness. Overlearned, habitual movement patterns become mostly unconscious, entering consciousness only when mistakes or surprising outcomes occur. In mindful movement, this automatization process is essentially inverted or suspended, reactivating previously unconscious details of movement in the conscious workspace, and crucially enabling a renewed aesthetic attention to such details. This wider perspective on dance has important implications for potential animal analogs of human dance and leads to multiple lines of experimental exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".