title: Social implications arise in embodied music cognition research which can counter musicological "individualism".
abstract: The agenda in music research that is broadly recognized as embodied music cognition has arrived hand-in-hand with a social interpretation of music, focusing on the real-world basis of its performance, and fostering an empirical approach to musician movement regarding the communicative function and potential of those movements. However, embodied cognition emerged from traditional cognitivism, which produced a body of scientific explanation of music-theoretic concepts. The analytical object of this corpus is based on the particular imagined encounter of a listener responding to an idealized "work." Although this problem of essentialism has been identified within mainstream musicology, the lingering effects may spill over into interdisciplinary, empirical research. This paper defines the situation according to its legacy of individualism, and offers an alternative sketch of musical activity as performance event, a model that highlights the social interaction processes at the heart of musical behavior. I describe some recent empirical work based on interaction-oriented approaches, arguing that this particular focus - on the social interaction process itself - creates a distinctive and promising agenda for further research into embodied music cognition.
authors.affiliation: Reid School of Music, Edinburgh College of Art, Edinburgh University Edinburgh, UK.
authors.forename: Nikki
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Moran
keywords: empirical research; individualism; music cognition; music performance; social interaction
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2014 Mar;55:98-104
references.pmid: 24333167
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Mar;102(3):299-314
references.pmid: 18789454
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Feb 28;6:26
references.pmid: 22375113
references.citation: BMC Neurosci. 2009 Mar 17;10:22
references.pmid: 19292892
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Oct;17(10):1565-77
references.pmid: 16269097
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Nov;64(11):2153-67
references.pmid: 21929475
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Dec;1060:462-6
references.pmid: 16597804
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48:115-38
references.pmid: 9046557
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):639-51
references.pmid: 18603233
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Nov;63(11):2220-30
references.pmid: 20694920
references.citation: Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Oct;4(4):653-67
references.pmid: 22811369
references.citation: Cognition. 1983 Jan;13(1):63-102
references.pmid: 6681743
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:617-45
references.pmid: 17705682
references.citation: Science. 2005 Jun 3;308(5727):1430
references.pmid: 15933193
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Feb;76(2):527-40
references.pmid: 24170378
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Dec;12(6):969-92
references.pmid: 16615317
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2013 Nov;23(11):2592-600
references.pmid: 22892422
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):625-36
references.pmid: 12613670
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Feb;118(2):157-70
references.pmid: 21146164
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Oct;31(5):559-75; discussion 575-621
references.pmid: 18826699
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Jun;20(3):403-52
references.pmid: 23397235
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jul;89(4):305-33
references.pmid: 7134331
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2013;60(1):53-63
references.pmid: 22935329
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 13;4:841
references.pmid: 24312065