Abstract
Performance generating systems (PGS) are rule- and task-based approaches to improvisation on stage in theater, dance, and music. These systems require performers to draw on predefined source materials (texts, scores, memories) while working on complex tasks within limiting rules. An interdisciplinary research team at a large Western Canadian University hypothesized that learning to sustain this praxis over the duration of a performance places high demands on executive functions; demands that may improve the performers’ executive abilities. These performers need to continuously shift attention while remaining responsive to embodied and environmental stimuli in the present, they are required to inhibit automated responses and impulses using the rules of the system, and they strive toward addressing multitasking challenges with fluidity and flexibility. This study set out to test the mentioned hypothesis deductively and identify mediating processes inductively, using mixed empirical methods. In a small sample experiment with a control group (28 participants; 15 in intervention group, 13 in control group), standardized quantitative tests of executive functions (D-KEFS) were administered before and after an 8-week intervention. Participant-reported qualitative observations from the praxis were also collected throughout the intervention for grounded analysis. Within the limitations of small sample data, we found both statistically significant and trending effects on inhibition, problem-solving initiation, fluidity, and cognitive flexibility. Examining the mediating process, we found that participants experienced significant challenges sustaining the practice halfway through the intervention. The participant-reported solutions to these challenges, which emerged as the strongest behavioral patterns when coding the qualitative data to saturation, were strategies of problem-solving and of re-directing attention. These strategies support and advance our understanding of the effects measured in the standardized tests. In terms of application, our results identify characteristics of PGS that could potentially maintain and strengthen executive functions over and above less demanding performing arts interventions. The results also deliver new insight into how PGS works, which may contribute to the development and teaching of this artistic practice.
Highlights
If improvisation praxis within performance generating systems (PGS) in theater, dance, and music places high demands on the performers’ executive functions, might such demands result in positive effects on executive abilities? PGS require performers to continuously shift attention and remain responsive to embodied and environmental stimuli in the present, inhibit automated responses and impulses using the rules of the system, and strive toward addressing multitasking challenges with fluidity and flexibility
While this study found no results on a test designed to measure cognitive flexibility, global results were found on a verbal fluency test which includes inhibition and shifting between word categories
This difference may in part explain a trending effect we found on the composite, scaled Design Fluency (DF) test score [Wilcoxon p = 0.0696; t(25) = −2.06, p = 0.025]
Summary
If improvisation praxis within performance generating systems (PGS) in theater, dance, and music places high demands on the performers’ executive functions, might such demands result in positive effects on executive abilities? PGS require performers to continuously shift attention and remain responsive to embodied and environmental stimuli in the present, inhibit automated responses and impulses using the rules of the system, and strive toward addressing multitasking challenges with fluidity and flexibility. Executive functioning (EF) is a broad term used to refer to higher cognitive processes that allow one to mediate one’s behavior in response to an ever-changing environment. Executive functions encompass the control, supervisory, and/or self-regulatory functions that organize and direct all cognitive activities, emotional responses, and overt behaviors (Isquith et al, 2005). These processes are controlled, rather than automatic, and include the regulation of attention and motor responses, delay of gratification, planning, problem-solving, inhibition of prepotent (or automatic) responses, concept formation, abstract thinking, cognitive and behavioral flexibility, inhibitory control, self-monitoring, working memory, and attention (Carlson et al, 2004; Wiebe et al, 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
