Rudolf Laban (1879-1958) was referred to in 1923 as “the greatest Tanzformer of the age” (ie. a dance law-giver and dance creator) and was considered by many to be “the supreme theoretician and organizer of the new dance world” which thrived in Europe from around 1900 until the second world war (Green, 1986, p. 108). In 1930 Laban had rose to the height of his career with an appointment as Director of Dance and Movement at Prussian State Theatres in Berlin. However, this ended in 1936 when his dance events in celebration of the Berlin Olympic Games, along with his books, movement notation, and name, were forbidden by the Nazis. Soon after, Laban moved to England where he began his work anew. Laban’s life, especially during the German Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, has been reviewed by many authors (Green, 1986; Hodgson and Preston-Dunlop, 1990; Koegler, 1974; Preston-Dunlop, 1988) and his own reminiscences of early days dancing in Europe have also been published (Laban, 1975a).

Laban and his Students and Colleagues developed a mass of theoretical and practical knowledge about dance and movement. These theories and methods have been promoted over the years by the Laban Art of Movement Guild (1) and the Laban Centre for Movement and Dance (2) in the United Kingdom, the Laban / Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies (3), and Motus Humanus (4) in the United States, and by the recently established European Association for Laban/Bartenieff Movement Studies (EuroLab) (5) in Europe. An overview of the development of Laban’s work has also been presented by Maletic (1987).
____________
1) Laban Guild, c/o Ann Ward, 30 Ringsend Rd., Limavady, County Derry, Northern Ireland BT49 OQJ, United Kingdom.
2) Laban Centre for Movement and Dance, Laurie Grove, New Cross, London SE 14 5 PN, United Kingdom.
3) Motus Humanus, P. O. Box 11036, Denver, Colorado 80211.
4) Laban/Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies, 11 East 4th Street, New York, New York 10003.
5) EuroLab, Karl-Marx-Strasse 58, D-12043 Berlin, Germany.
____________

I.21 Components of Laban’s Study of Movement.

One of the principal components of Laban’s theories of movement is a unique system for conceptualising and performing spatial forms created by bodily movements and positions. This system has become known as “choreutics” (Laban, 1966) or “space harmony” (Dell, 1972) and can be defined as “the study of harmonic spatial forms and the manner in which they materialise in movement” (Preston-Dunlop, 1984, p. viii).

Laban also devised system of movement notation, known as Labanotation or kinetography Laban, which has been well developed (Hutchinson, 1970; Hutchinson-Guest, 1983; Knust, 1979a, b; Laban, 1975b; Preston-Dunlop, 1969) and has been used for the notation of a vast number of dance works (many cataloged by the Laban Centre; London, and the Dance Notation Bureau, New York City). Another component of Laban’s work focuses on bodily dynamics or “effort”. This has also been well developed and applied in a variety of applications such as work efficiency in industry (Laban and Lawrence, 1947) the assessment of personality (North, 1972), decision-making style (Lamb, 1965; Lamb and Turner, 1969; Lamb and Watson, 1979; Moore, 1982), theatrical movement (Laban, 1980), and in social and cultural studies (Bartenieff and Lewis, 1980; Lomax et al., 1968). This is just a bare listing of the most prominent works and is no way representative of the vast amount of work done with Labanotation and effort theory (for a review see Maletic, 1987).

I.22 Choreutics as Underdeveloped.

Compared to the development and application of Labanotation and effort theory, choreutics has remained largely under-developed. In many cases the spatial forms identified by Laban are simply listed with brief instructions on their bodily performance (Dell, 1972; Preston-Dunlop, 1984) or presented as abstract spatial models without any explicit connection to human body movement (Laban, 1984). Occasionally the basic choreutic forms such as planes, diagonals, and figure-8s, or more complex choreutic forms, have been applied to dance technique by Bodmer (1979) and Loman (1987) and to ballet choreography by W. Forsythe (Sulcas, 1995) and to aerobics (eg. “kinespherics”) by K. Lindahl (Brody, 1995). While some of the spatial forms identified in choreutics are used in these applications the underlying basis for the choreutic system, sometimes referred to as “choreutic laws” (Laban, 1966, p. 26) or the “binding laws of harmony” (Ullmann, 1971, p. 1) have not been systematically delineated or critically analysed. Therefore, the underlying validity of choreutics as a theory for comprehending the spatial aspect of human body movement has remained unevaluated. This is a gap in the current knowledge which this thesis addresses.

Part of the reason for this lack of a critical reevaluation of choreutics may be because it is lodged in a forever unanalyzable metaphysics. Choreutic writings typically contain a blending of scientific human movement study together with philosophical outlooks about the significance of human movement in human society and the universe. The use of crystalline (polyhedral) forms also promotes these metaphysical associations. This blending of the scientific and the magical began with Laban’s own writings which may be expressively inspiring but their discussion is often obscure. Green (1986, p. 108) recounts how “There was a general agreement, even among his admirers, that he could not explain himself clearly”. Indeed, the analyses of human movements in Choreutics are continually mixed with metaphysical musings (Laban, 1966, pp. 54, 91, 100, 114, 124).

This state of affairs can lead many students to regard choreutics with a sort of philosophical awe and consider it to be a historical oddity better suited for mystic or geometric study rather than being readily applicable to the practice of bodily movement (personal observation). Indeed, choreutics has been ridiculed on philosophical grounds (Langer, 1953, p. 186) while overlooking any serious scientific consideration of its relevance to kinesiology and the voluntary and reflexive control of human movement.

Nevertheless, it appears that it may be possible to critically reevaluate the basis for the choreutic conception of bodily movement “harmony” since considerable groundwork has been laid by a few previous researchers. Preston-Dunlop (1978) has asserted the irrelevance of cosmological theories to choreutics, separated choreutics from any stylistic convention, organised an abbreviation system for choreutic forms and identified their spontaneous occurrence in dance works. Preston-Dunlop (1981) continued this work by devising and applying a “choreutic-unit”, “manner-of-materialization” analysis which distinguishes between different manners through which a choreutic form can be embodied (viz. spatial progression, body design, spatial tension, spatial projection). Preston-Dunlop (1984) then provided simple instructions on embodiment together with the largest listing of choreutic forms yet presented. Research by this author (Longstaff, 1986; 1987; 1989) has used geometric polyhedral analyses to comprehend symmetric transformations of choreutic forms which occur in dance and has identified certain underlying and consistent theories present in the array of choreutic writings by Laban and his Students/Colleagues. However, these foundations of choreutic knowledge are still dispersed and not concisely stated.

In order to obtain an objective understanding of choreutics the theories stated by Laban and his Students/Colleagues need to be systematically delineated, and these need to be reevaluated according to current scientific knowledge about human movement. This reevaluation is undertaken in this thesis.

I.31 The Realm of Choreutic Study.

An initial step in this research was to determine what fields of scientific knowledge consider the same subject matter as is addressed by choreutics. These other fields would then be used as a context in which to reevaluate the validity of the choreutic conception.

As mentioned above, the metaphysics of numerology, sacred forms, divine proportions and the seven components of colour, music, and organic growth have an intimate association with choreutics. These likely developed out of Laban’s involvement with Rosicrucian Freemasonry during the early development of choreutics (Green, 1986, pp. 104-107). Many of these are embodied in the polyhedra used to conceptualise the space around the body and in the sequences of movements delineated within the polyhedra. Studies of Astrology have also been linked to the spatial organisation of choreutics (Auerbach, 1951). These cosmological theories can be a fascinating part of choreutic study, however Preston-Dunlop (1978) has asserted that they are not necessary for, and may even distract from, a purely practical study of the choreutic forms.

Choreutics can also be beneficially applied to many specialised fields such as dance education, the performing arts, movement therapy, and the analysis of movement in any context. This research considered choreutics primarily through the context of dance education. An initial overview of choreutic practice within dance education revealed three essential components. These can be referred to as conceptualisation, embodiment, and transformations.

The choreutic conceptualisation of space consists of imagining a framework of polyhedral networks which surround the body and serve as a map-like grid. Various spatial forms can then be conceptually identified according a series of nodes or points within the network.

The embodiment consists of physically performing an imagined spatial form with one’s own body. Four types of embodiment or “materialisation” have been distinguished (Preston-Dunlop, 1981, pp. 54-60). In spatial progression the form is embodied by the pathway of a moving body-part or of the whole body. In body design the form is embodied by the sculptural mass of a body pose. In spatial tension the form is embodied by creating a perceptual illusion of a connection between two body parts across “empty” space. In spatial projection the form is embodied by creating a perceptual illusion of a line extending outwards into space beyond the body.

Transformations consist of mentally manipulating the conceptual image of a spatial form. A spatial form becomes disembodied, purely conceptual, and is not tied to a particular embodiment. Space is then treated as isotropic, ie. “democratic” (Preston-Dunlop, 1981, pp. 26, 37) in which all locations are treated as equally valid for use in any spatial form. A spatial form is then mentally transformed by any of several symmetry operations; rotation, reflection, translation, retrogradation, and sizing (enlarging / reducing). In addition, a form may be deflected or deviated so that its shape is actually changed or deformed.

These three choreutic processes of image conceptualisation, physical embodiment, and mental transformations were identified as having received considerable study within the field of psychology, in particular in studies of spatial perception (eg. McGee, 1979; Sedgwick, 1986) and motor skill learning (eg. Newell, 1991). Initial research confirmed this and revealed that many experimental tasks used in cognitive psychology and motor control studies are analogous to choreutic exercises. Thus, cognitive psychology and motor control studies were undertaken with the intent of identifying well established characteristics by which to reevaluate Laban’s choreutic conception.

I.32 Gradual Refinement of the Focus of this Research.

During the course of this research the focus was gradually refined. The aim of the investigation from the original research proposal was to “discern problems, and to design and test techniques, of effective choreutic education” (Longstaff, 1990; Appendix I.10). This began with a review of spatial cognitive processes in order to identify educational issues about how humans perceive and remember the spatial aspect of body movements and positions. These studies in cognitive psychology and motor control revealed that the vast majority of research focused on visual spatial cognition and that the role of kinesthesia is often neglected. Since a large part of the choreutic system is based on kinesthetic spatial information it became evident that before educational techniques could be devised that the nature of kinesthetic spatial knowledge within choreutics must first be explored and defined.

Thus, in the “Application for Transfer of Registration from Master of Philosophy to Doctor of Philosophy” the focus of the research was explicitly refined to focus on identifying the nature of choreutic knowledge according to concepts of spatial cognition as developed in cognitive psychology and motor control research (Longstaff, 1992; Appendix I.20). An understanding of spatial cognition would then inform dance teachers and theorists about how kinesthetic spatial knowledge is mentally conceived and communicated. The findings of this research would be readily applicable to dance education, though this would not be the principal focus.

This refined focus was also accompanied by a new research title which proposed an “integration” of choreutic concepts together with spatial concepts from cognitive psychology and motor control. This notion of “integration” was questionable at the beginning since it would require that the experimental, analytical approach in cognitive psychology and motor control be brought together into a unity with the experiential, artistic, intuitive approach in dance. As the research neared its completion it was evident that, rather than an integration, the experimentally verified spatial cognitive processes identified in psychology and motor control studies had been used as a criteria and a context in which to reevaluate the system of choreutics as intuitively identified by Laban and his Students/Colleagues.

Thus, in this final thesis the notion of “reevaluating” choreutics in the context of spatial cognition and motor control has been used. The changing titles of this research has not been a shift in focus, but has been a refining of the essence of the research which gradually became evident as the research unfolded.

I.33 Summary of the Reevaluation.

In Section II. the concept of “kinesthetic spatial cognition” (analogous to the psychological concept of “visual spatial cognition”; eg. Phillips, 1983) was developed to define an overall realm in cognitive and motor control studies according to which the choreutic conception can be reevaluated.

In Section IIA. kinesthesia was identified as arising from sensory stimulations via receptors in muscles, tendons, joints, skin, vestibular apparatus, eyes, ears, and also from an interior knowledge of motor commands (efferent data). This assortment of stimulations from throughout the body are derived into perceptions of balance and equilibrium, self-motion, limb–motion, limb position, and force or exertion.

In Section IIB. “kinesthetic space” was defined as spatial information which is perceived and/or recalled through the kinesthetic perceptual-motor system. A multitude of types of environmental, bodily, and conceptual “spaces” were considered and concepts such as kinesthetic-motor space, work space, reach space, and movement space are seen as relatively synonymous with Laban’s (1966) concept of the “kinesphere”; referring to the space within immediate reach of body movements.

In Section IIC. “kinesthetic spatial cognition” is defined as cognitive processes (eg. perception, imagery, mental manipulations) which are performed on kinesthetic spatial information. Support for this concept is built-up from psychological theory. A great deal of research has distinguished spatial cognition from verbal cognition as using separate cognitive resources (eg. Baddeley, 1986). Spatial information can arise from separate visual, audio, and kinesthetic perceptual-motor systems but is eventually represented in a unitary spatial memory system (eg. Baddeley and Lieberman, 1980; Solso and Raynis, 1979). Kinesthetic-motor knowledge is considered by many researchers to inherently require cognitive processing rather than consisting solely of sensory-motor responding. Kinesthetic-motor activity has long been identified as being at the basis of all spatial learning (eg. Piaget and Inhelder, 1967) and is hypothesised to function as a spatial rehearsal mechanism (eg. eye movements) (Baddeley, 1983). Body movements also appear to serve as a mechanism whereby spatial information arising from different receptors is compared and calibrated so that the various spatial sensations “read” the same. Many theorists also purport that kinesthetic-motor information is at the basis of all types of cognitive processes (including verbal). This concept of “kinesthetic spatial cognition” has not been heretofore explicitly developed in cognitive psychology and so constitutes new knowledge. This provides a cognitive and motor control context in which to reevaluate choreutics.

The choreutic conception can be reevaluated according to knowledge about kinesthetic spatial cognition. In Section III. four cognitive structures* used in choreutics were identified as having also been well developed in studies of spatial cognition and motor control. Briefly stated these are: 1) Spatial information is interpreted according to various systems of reference. 2) Mental representations of kinesthetic spatial knowledge are based on a code of elemental locations. 3) Individual locations are eventually collected into cognitive map-like spatial images of an entire environment. 4) Symmetrical transformations are often performed on spatial information. The explicit identification of these cognitive structures in spatial cognition research gives psychological validity to their fundamental role within the choreutic conception.
____________________
* A “cognitive structure” refers to the way in which knowledge is organised or structured during cognitive processes (eg. Thorndyke, 1977).
____________________


Section IIIA. considers how spatial information must be defined relative to a system of reference. Types of egocentric (body-relative) and exocentric (environment-relative) reference systems have been identified in cognitive studies. Reference systems distinguished in Labanotation and choreutics are validated by the identification of similar reference systems within spatial cognition research. This similarity has not been heretofore explicitly identified and so constitutes new knowledge. A great deal of differentiation is provided in the Labanotation and choreutic reference systems which could serve as tools in spatial cognition research.

In Section IIIB. a variety of research is considered which indicates that the mental representation of spatial information is based on individual locations. For example, the final location of a body movement can be recalled better than the distance moved and the location of one body-part can be recalled (virtually) just as well with a different body-part. These effects indicate that spatial locations are recalled rather than particular movements. (See IIIB.10.)

The mass-spring model for motor control provides a theoretical basis for a location code. The elemental unit of body-movement is thought to be a single motion toward a new “equilibrium point” where there is equal tension between agonist and antagonist muscles (Bizzi and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1989; Jordan and Rosenbaum, 1989). Each equilibrium point comprises one elemental location in the mental representation of a body movement. (See IIIB.20.)

A location code is also evident in studies of “trajectory formation” where measurements of the degree of path curvature and velocity of movement revealed that a path was divided into several “path segments” separated by “curvature peaks” (Abend et al., 1982; Morasso, 1983b). A model for the production of complex paths was developed in which the “primitive movements in the motor repertoire” consist of the path segments, identified as “strokes”, and the curvature peaks identified as “guiding points” for the production of the trajectory. Angular transitions between strokes occur when they are performed in a discontinuous manner, whereas a partial time overlap between consecutive strokes causes one stroke to be blended or “superimposed” with the next stroke, creating a smoothly curving movement. This model of trajectory formation is identified as being similar to “spline functions” which generate curved lines from a series of straight vectors in computer graphics (Morasso, 1986, pp. 38-44). The “abstract representations” of a body movement are posited to be cognitively planned according to a series of locations in which “the desired shape is approximated by means of a polygon” (one location at each polygonal corner), and then “the sides of the polygon are generated and superimposed” in actual body movement (Morasso et al., 1983, pp. 86, 97). (See IIIB.30.)

Similar location-based models have been developed for handwriting production, motor control of speech, stimulus-response compatibility, spatial motor preprogramming, and in visual and verbal memory. (See IIIB.50, .70.) Coordinative structures are identified as the body-level counterpart to the spatial-level of the location code. A library of reflexive movements allow the entire body to automatically accommodate to the planned trajectory of an individual body-part. (See IIIB.60.)

These location-based models of motor control and spatial cognition give validity to the virtually identical conceptual structure used in choreutics where Laban (1966, pp. 27-28) identified the same movement attributes as the trajectory formation model and referred to them as “‘peaks’ within the trace-form” and “phases of its pathway”. Kinespheric paths and poses are conceived as being polygonal-shaped. Curved or angular trajectories are produced depending on whether successive strokes are smoothly blended together or if the guiding points are abruptly accented. This choreutic conception is virtually identical to the trajectory formation model. (See IIIB.40.)

Section IIIC reviewed how sequences of locations which have been well learned will be conceptually joined together into map-like images which simultaneously represent an entire spatial environment. A great deal of “cognitive map” research has explored characteristics of these spatial images for environments ranging from small page-sized spaces accessible to eye and arm movements through to large country-sized spaces accessible by traveling. This provides psychological validity for Laban’s use of geometric map-like images of the kinesphere (termed grids, networks, or scaffolding). Similar geometric kinespheric maps have been depicted by artists and architects (eg. Leonardo Da Vinci; Le Corbusier). In the choreutic conception bodily paths and poses are represented as groups of locations within polyhedral-shaped conceptual map-like images of the kinespheric network.

Section IIID reviewed the variety of symmetrical transformations (eg. mental rotation, reflection, imagined self-translation) which are used within spatial cognition tasks. Many motor control studies have also revealed that kinesthetic spatial information (eg. an arm movement) can easily be transformed (eg. reflected, rotated) or performed by different body parts. This ability to perform symmetrical operations is identified as being critical for effective everyday use of spatial knowledge (eg. when reading a map which is not in alignment with the actual physical environment). Five types of symmetrical transformations are identified within spatial cognition and motor control studies and referred to here as translation (including body transfer), reflection, rotation, size scaling, and retrogradation. These symmetries and their notation symbols can help clarify and make explicit the transformations in spatial cognitive tasks and dance practice. A large part of choreutic practice also consists of transforming spatial forms into new orientations and performing them with different body parts. Choreutic “scales” are composed of paths and poses with three-dimensional symmetry which are described identically to spatial patterns used while maintaining dynamic equilibrium in three dimensions. Because of this, the mental conception and physical execution of choreutic scales and rings can be considered to be cognitive and bodily practice in symmetrical transformations and varieties of dynamic equilibrium adjustments.

The four cognitive structures of kinesthetic space identified here (reference systems, location code, map-like images, symmetrical transformations) have been well developed within psychology and motor control research and so this provides a validation for their use in choreutics. These parallel spatial conceptions developed in choreutics and identified in spatial cognition and motor control research have not been heretofore identified and so constitute new knowledge about the psychological validity of the choreutic conception.

In Section IV. two components of choreutics were identified and reevaluated more closely. These include a prototype/deflection hypothesis for the mental conception and bodily action of kinespheric forms (IVA), and varieties of taxonomy-schemes for distinguishing between categories of kinespheric information (IVB). Perceptual/memory experiments were devised from previous psychological experimental methods for probing these choreutic components. Both experiments demonstrated the advantageous use of choreutic material and Labanotation symbols as stimuli in experimental research. This has not heretofore been explicitly identified and so constitutes new knowledge.

In Section IVA a choreutic prototype/deflection hypothesis was identified which posits that kinespheric dimensional and diagonal orientations serve as idealised conceptual prototypes of pure stability and pure mobility, while actual bodily movements occur as deflections (“inclinations”) between nearby dimensional and diagonal directions. (See IVA.20,.40.)

Similar spatial prototypes are evident in the English language where dimensions are given the greatest conceptual specificity, diagonals (45°) are given less, and off–diagonal inclines are given the least specificity. Prototype effects are also demonstrated in spatial cognition research where (for example) dimensional orientations are perceived and responded to more readily than diagonal orientations (“oblique effect”) and lines or angles are perceived/remembered to be more dimensional, or to be closer to 90°, than they actually are. (See IVA.30,.50.)

Anatomical constraints are identified as a principal source of deflections. Measurements of ranges of motion at single-joints did not support the deflection hypothesis but these are not ecologically valid measures of whole-body kinespheric structure. Kinesiological analyses of joint structures and muscular lines-of-pull both supported the hypothesis that body movements tend to move out of pure dimensionally-oriented Cartesian planes and into obliquely tilting paths. Therefore, oblique directions must be considered to be kinesiologically simpler than dimensional and Cartesian planar paths. (See IVA.70.)

Deflections are described in choreutics as arising from many sources including; rotary joint articulations which take the motion out of a pure Cartesian plane; effects arising from the physical forces generated during a movement (eg. momentum): and also from the desire by the mover to produce a particular expression or communication. The physical forces and expressive qualities of moving within Cartesian planes are flat, rigid, and contained, compared with the physics and expression of movement along inclined planes. Laban (1951, p. 11) made a similar observation that the inclinations are “most obvious in the expressions of emotional excitement” when the dynamism of inclinational slopes would be overtly exhibited. (See IVA.80.)

The hypothesised deflected inclinations create an icosahedral-shaped kinespheric structure with rectangular-shaped Cartesian planes. This is remarkably similar to ergonomic measurements of the shape of the workspace or “kinetosphere” (eg. Dempster et al., 1959; Squires, 1956). (See IVA.90.)

The choreutic conception can be considered to be a counter-part to the ballet conception. Ballet is based on a conception of dimensions which are implicitly deflected towards nearby diagonals during actual body movement. In contrast to this, choreutics is based on a conception of diagonals which are explicitly deflected towards nearby dimensions during actual body movement. Laban (1926, p. 64) summarises that ballet is “oriented in dimensional stability” while the “new dance” is “oriented in diagonal lability” and so Laban used the choreutic diagonal scale as the principal exercise in his dance technique classes (Bodmer and Huxley, 1982, p. 18). A few examples of ballet movements deflecting into inclinations are given here. The further development of a choreutic diagonally-based para-ballet movement technique is possible with an understanding of organic deflections into inclinational directions. This is a direction for future research. (See IVA.60,.80.)

An experiment was devised with the purpose of identifying cognitive prototypes in kinesthetic spatial cognition. Subjects made distance judgements between pairs of kinespheric directions (with Labanotation symbols used as stimuli) by drawing a symbol at an appropriate distance within a semi-circular grid (once with stimulus 1 fixed at the origin of a semi-circular grid, and once with stimulus 2 fixed at the origin of the grid). These were measured and scrutinised for the presence of asymmetrical distance judgements which are an indication of cognitive reference points (following Rosch, 1975a; Sadalla et al., 1980). Distance judgements were not significantly different regardless of which Labanotation symbol was fixed at the origin of the grid and so this did not support the hypothesis of reference points in cognitive maps of the kinesphere. However, it appeared that Subjects may have been estimating the static length of a line or the size of an angle rather than a distance along a particular direction from one location and towards another location. Alternative procedures for identifying reference points in kinespheric cognitive maps are suggested. (See IVA.110.)

In Section IVB hypothetical categories of kinesthetic spatial information are distinguished in dance and choreutics. These can possibly contribute to the need for defining a “class” of movement which has been identified as a fundamental problem in evaluating the schema theory for motor learning. Spatial perception research indicates that the primitive element of kinespheric poses is the straight body segment (eg. as in a “stick figure” representation of an animal’s body) (Marr, 1980; Marr and Nishihara, 1978). Individual segments are organised into higher-order groupings (eg. ball-like, pentagon-shaped, “X”-shaped) according to the Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping. Motor control research indicates that the primitive element of kinespheric paths is the curved stroke between locations (eg. Morasso, 1986). Individual curved strokes can be organised into higher-order groupings (eg. straight paths, angles, loops, figure–8) according the possibilities afforded by kinesiological constraints. A method for developing a kinesiologically valid taxonomy of kinespheric forms is presented. Further refinements to an initial taxonomy developed here is a matter for future research. (See IVB.10-.30.)

Since visual and kinesthetic spatial forms can be easily recognised or produced regardless of metric variations, Bernstein (1984) asserts that they are mentally represented as “topological categories” (pp. 105, 108) which are embodied with slightly different metric variations on each successive physical execution yet the essential topological form is unchanged. Thus, Bernstein describes the “co–ordinational net of the motor field . . . as oscillating like a cobweb in the wind” (p. 109). This is virtually identical to the choreutic conception where kinespheric “natural sequences” are based on a contrast of “axial” versus “equatorial” shapes of motion, together with an intermediary “hybrid” (Laban, 1966, pp. 68-72) and these topological forms are conceived to deflect across various polyhedral-shaped cognitive map-like images of the kinespheric network. (See IVB.34.)

A movement memory experiment was devised with the purpose of identifying whether categories of kinesthetic spatial information are actually used in cognitive processes. Subjects learned sixteen discrete kinespheric-items and were allowed to recall these in any order over five learning and free recall trials. Measurements of “subjective organisation” indicated that kinespheric-items were organised into categories during learning and recall. An analysis of the categories led to a twofold hypothesis of category membership defined by the form (ie. movements with the same form were clustered together regardless of their orientation) and category prototypicality defined by the orientation (ie. movements oriented along a pure dimension or a Cartesian plane were recalled at the beginning of a cluster). Identifying kinesthetic spatial categories in this way has not been heretofore undertaken in psychological research and so constitutes additional new knowledge. (See IVB.50.)

In summary, new knowledge has been identified in this research relevant to dance education. There is a lack of verified knowledge about kinesthetic spatial cognitive structures by dance theorists and educators. This gap in the knowledge is addressed by this thesis which presents psychologically valid knowledge about cognitive structures of kinesthetic space written for dancers, movement educators, and others with no previous experience with cognitive theories.

New knowledge is also presented relative to the choreutic conception. A principal realm of the subject matter of choreutics was identified within the psychological concept of kinesthetic spatial cognition. Cognitive structures which are used in choreutics were psychologically validated by their well established identification in spatial cognition and motor control research. Choreutic conceptions of organic deflections and varieties of kinespheric categories were identified in this research and were supported with anatomical/kinesiological analysis and by psychological experiments.

In addition, new knowledge identified in this research is relevant to the fields of psychology and motor control. Whiting (1986) reviews the importance of human body movement within psychology and probes the question of why a subfield of psychology concerned with human movement has not been differentiated. It is pointed out that since virtually all behavioral and cognitive processes involve body movement that there is a “dualistic thinking implicit in trying to separate out movement from cognition” (p. 116). Whiting (1986) reasons that one factor leading to this neglect in studying body movements in psychology may be the methodological difficulties involved in trying to quantify their attributes. Even though body movement is familiar to everyone it is also elusive and its “vocabulary is difficult to codify” (p. 124). Likewise, In Morasso’s (1983b, p. 187) attempts to use verbal descriptions of three-dimensional arm/hand trajectories in motor control research, it is noted that “simple experiments of this kind reveal the dramatic inadequacy of natural language to express movements and spatial relations”.

This problem has also been identified by Golani (1986) who asserts that movements must be considered in their entire three-dimensional plastic form rather than the incomplete planar analyses typically found in motor control studies. Another good example can be seen in the lexicon of “motor knowledge”, or “motor language” presented by Cammurri and Colleagues (1986, pp. 104, 116-124) which consists of an assemblage of dance and movement terms without any consistent underlying analysis of their interrelationships. The necessity for a taxonomy of kinesthetic-motor knowledge has also been identified as essential for determining what constitutes a “class” of movements in studies of the schema theory for motor learning.

This problem of a lack of penetrating terminology for forms and orientations of body movements in psychology and motor control can be informed by the movement categories and terminology developed in choreutics and Labanotation. The first steps toward a more explicit taxonomy of motor knowledge is taken in this present research and directions for future inquiries are given. This research has also demonstrated the new knowledge that choreutic material and accompanying Labanotation symbols can be advantageously used as stimuli in psychological and motor control experiments.

This research has only been a beginning in defining the range of kinesthetic spatial knowledge. The foundation has been provided by firmly rooting choreutics within the context of spatial cognition and motor control. Future research can continue this process by continuing to clarify spatial cognitive structures within the study of dance and choreutics, and by utilising choreutic concepts and material within research into spatial cognition and motor control.