Ballroom Brainwaves

A neuroscientist studies the brains of tango dancers in an attempt to understand interpersonal connectedness.

By | March 28, 2014

Dancers perform at “NeuroTango,” held in Brooklyn, New York, this week.ELI CHENDancing with someone for the first time involves a great deal of uncertainty. At first, new dance partners watch their feet nervously, unsure of where to step. But with time, rhythm and flow can develop between them. Eventually, it might seem as though they’ve known one another for years and can predict their partner’s moves.

It’s not fully known what makes two people click. But some researchers are working to understand how human brains can operate in sync. Suzanne Dikker, a cognitive neuroscientist at New York University, is one such researcher, and she’s using partner dance to unravel the complicated neuroscience behind such interpersonal “chemistry.”

“Humans are always trying to gauge compatibility and connectedness,” says Dikker, “so we know who we want to work with and who we don’t. Our survival is dependent on how we synchronize with each other.”

Dikker staged an event in Brooklyn, New York, this week (March 26) to demonstrate what brain synchrony might look like between dancers. With “NeuroTango,” which was hosted by the Greater New York City Chapter of the Society for Neuroscience as part of its Brain Awareness Week, Dikker hooked up two pairs of tango dancers with EEG headsets to measure each person’s brainwaves. She then performed three experiments.

First, the previously acquainted pairs danced to a song like they normally would. Then they switched partners to dance with someone they were less familiar with. After that, the dancers stood in place with their initial partners and imagined they were dancing. All the while, Dikker projected graphics and numerical scores onto the walls of the room, depicting when the dancers’ brains were in sync, and when they were less so.

Dikker is using tango to study brain synchrony for a couple of reasons. For one, she finds the interactions between two tango dancers fascinating because of the amount of coordination it takes to make complicated movements look natural and instinctive.

“Tango is interesting and complex to study because depending on whether you’re a leader or a follower, there are different brain states involved in anticipating what your partner will do,” says Lawrence Parsons, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Sheffield. Parsons conducted the first neuroimaging study on dancers, in 2008, to discover which parts of the brain were most active in dance.

Beyond exhibiting performance art, with “NeuroTango” Dikker sought to test whether EEG could be reliably used to study moving interactions in real time. She had previously worked on Marina Abramovic’s performance piece, “Measuring the Magic of Mutual Gaze,” which was featured at the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture in Moscow in 2011. As part of that installation, participants were asked to sit still and make eye contact with strangers for prolonged periods of time, as EEG headsets captured their brain activities. The brainwave data Dikker collected from Abramovic’s piece were what inspired her to devise NeuroTango—she wanted to compare the EEG’s reading on stationary versus mobile subjects.

However, brainwave data is best collected in the absence sound or movement, and it’s well known among neuroscientists that portable EEGs can be hypersensitive.

“I’m cautious because the subjects’ movements and the audience presence could create noise in the data,” says Lewis Hou, a research associate at the University of Edinburgh, who’s leading a project to discern what’s happening in the brains of Scottish folk dancers. From a science communication standpoint, however, “I think this is event is a fantastic way to engage the public in neuroscience,” he adds.

Dikker also hoped to explore how each dancer’s level of experience played into synchronization. One pair of dancers had known one another for 17 years, while the other had only been dance partners for six. Ivana Konvalinka, a cognitive neuroscientist at Technical University of Denmark, wondered what Dikker’s preliminary data might show about what happens in dancers’ brains while they’re imagining movement, and how that might relate to his or her level of expertise.

“Studies have shown that experienced dancers coordinate their movements very differently than those who aren’t,” says Konvalinka. “[The] premotor cortex, which is activated while dancing, is also highly activated even when they’re just rehearsing in their heads.”

While technological limitations make these questions a challenge to investigate, “NeuroTango” nonetheless provided a glimpse into a small but growing field in neuroscience that’s diving deep into the mysterious space between two people.

Corrections (March 28): This article has been updated to more accurately reflect Suzanne Dikker’s current affiliation, and to correct when and where Marina Abramovic’s “Measuring the Magic of Mutual Gaze” was featured. A previous version incorrectly stated Abramovic’s piece was featured in New York City last year. It was in fact featured in Moscow in 2011. The Scientist regrets the errors.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Tom Voûte

Tom Voûte

Posts: 1

July 6, 2014

Your article was posted on the Facebook group “The Tango Reformation Party”, a forum where Argentine tango dancers, mostly non-professional social dancers,  exchange and discuss matters of mutual interest.  In response to the article I posted the comment below, and others in the group suggested that I submit this directly to your journal:

 

“You see occasionally such studies about tango and as always the researchers can’t be bothered to learn something about tango before hooking up their science to it. They don’t even say what kind of tango they are using for this piece of research, but assuming it is Argentine tango,  they really haven’t a clue, when reading stuff like:

“Dancing with someone for the first time involves a great deal of uncertainty. At first, new dance partners watch their feet nervously, unsure of where to step. But with time, rhythm and flow can develop between them”.


No it doesn’t. You don’t look at your feet and leader and follower, even if they have never met before, know where to step straightaway if the leading and following is halfway decent (unless one or both are beginners, in which case the study is about something quite different, and very different mental processes).

And:

“Tango is interesting and complex to study because depending on whether you’re a leader or a follower, there are different brain states involved in anticipating what your partner will do,”

No, it doesn’t work like that at all. Yes, different brain states are involved between leader and follower, but we don’t anticipate what the other is going to do.  Argentine tango does not, and cannot, work that way. And further:

“Dikker also hoped to explore how each dancer’s level of experience played into synchronization. One pair of dancers had known one another for 17 years, while the other had only been dance partners for six”

My comment on this is that studying people who have been dancing together that long is different from studying real social tango, were the magic is precisely where it works between people who don’t know each other very well, or not at all. “Synchronisation” in tango, as we all know, is something quite different and unrelated to the length of time people have danced together. These people are wasting research time and resources because they didn’t prepare properly for the research. As a general rule such work should be peer reviewed for scientific validity not just by other neuroscientist, but also by people who have expert knowledge of the activity for which brain activity is investigated. I won't give this particular study anymore more of my time for even this summary shows that it is methodologically so incoherent that it is quite unclear what exactly the researchers are trying to find out.

Avatar of: Christy

Christy

Posts: 1

July 26, 2014

I was attracted to this article because I, too, am a ballroom dancer.  I was thrilled there was research being done on dancers and connectedness. Unfortunately, I was disappointed as Tom was by the lack of dance understanding.  Tom nicely captured the incongruences. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 2

August 30, 2014

Dear fellow dancers. I'm a tango dancer too, as well as a biologist and a science journalist, and I organized this event. When I invited Suzanne Dikker to test the EEG headsets on tango dancers, the idea was to have a preliminary, informal test on dancing (moving) couples. This was never considered a scientific experiment. No serious researcher does an experiment with such few subjects (two couples) and under such heterogeneous conditions. It was, more than anything else, as Lewis Hou is quoted saying in the article, "a fantastic way to engage the public in neuroscience.” After the performance, we had a very interesting discussion with the public. It was a wonderful event but the data obtained is absolutely insufficient to draw any conclusions or to be published in any journal. There's no peer-review here beasue there is not enough data. That was made very clear in the event and I would like to make it clear here, again. 

I agree with you on the lack of tango understanding, though.

 

Graciela Flores

Avatar of:

Posts: 2

August 30, 2014

Dear fellow dancers. I'm a tango dancer too, as well as a biologist and a science journalist, and I organized this event. When I invited Suzanne Dikker to test the EEG headsets on tango dancers, the idea was to have a preliminary, informal test on dancing (moving) couples. This was never considered a scientific experiment. No serious researcher does an experiment with such few subjects (two couples) and under such heterogeneous conditions. It was, more than anything else, as Lewis Hou is quoted saying in the article, "a fantastic way to engage the public in neuroscience.” After the performance, we had a very interesting discussion with the public. It was a wonderful event but the data obtained is absolutely insufficient to draw any conclusions or to be published in any journal. There's no peer review here becasue there's not enough data. That was made very clear in the event and I would like to make it clear here, again. 

I agree with you on the lack of tango understanding, though.

Graciela Flores

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
R&D Systems
R&D Systems
Advertisement
PITTCON
PITTCON
Life Technologies