1. The autonomous groove of
relational dynamics
Julien Laroche
(Akoustic Arts Lab)
XIth meeting of the society
for autonomous neurodynamics Institut Pasteur, Paris, 2014.07.07

2. MAIN ISSUE
Being together  in time  rhythmic coordination

3. Classical conception of time =
its physical measurement :
I I I I I I I I I I
Linear succession of isochronous units
Background & theory : the shape of time to come

4. Classical conception of time =
its physical measurement :
I I I I I I I I I I
Linear succession of isochronous units
Stable regularity = norm, background
 Irregularity = error, approximation
Background & theory : the shape of time to come

5. Behavioral fluctuations :
 Functional & meaningful
Background & theory : the shape of time to come
(Gratier & Apter-Danon, 2009 ;
Palmer, 1997);

6. Behavioral fluctuations :
 Functional & meaningful
Background & theory : the shape of time to come
 (Multi)fractal (Van Orden & al., 2009 ; Ihlen & Vereijken, 2010)
(Gratier & Apter-Danon, 2009 ;
Palmer, 1997);

7. Behavioral fluctuations :
 Functional & meaningful
Background & theory : the shape of time to come
 (Multi)fractal
 Human timing emerges from
multiplicative interactions
(Van Orden & al., 2009 ; Ihlen & Vereijken, 2010)
(Gratier & Apter-Danon, 2009 ;
Palmer, 1997);
(Van Orden & al., 2003)

8. Behavioral fluctuations :
 Functional & meaningful
Background & theory : the shape of time to come
 (Multi)fractal
 Human timing emerges from
multiplicative interactions
 Regularity is not the baseline !!!
(Van Orden & al., 2009 ; Ihlen & Vereijken, 2010)
(Gratier & Apter-Danon, 2009 ;
Palmer, 1997);
(Van Orden & al., 2003)

9. Even metronomes share their timing with each other :
Background & theory : coordinative interactions
(Varela & al., 1991 ; Maturana & Varela, 1987 ; Barandarian & al., 2009)
Stability ~ flexibility + interactive coupling
 Coordination = self-organization of RELATIONAL dynamics

10. Coordinative interactions in brain & behavioral dynamics
Stability (system) emerges from a
background of fluctuations (components)
Background & theory : coordinative interactions
Metastable processes and fractal dynamics
Healthy, adaptive coordination
 (organized) variability is the norm / baseline !
(Van Orden & al., 2009)
(Kelso, 1995)

11. Interpersonal, interactive coordination
Background & theory : social domain
 Sensorimotor coupling dependant on each other
(Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009)

12. Interpersonal, interactive coordination
Background & theory : social domain
 Escapement and autonomy of relational dynamics
 Sensorimotor coupling dependant on each other
(De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007)
(Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009)

13. Interpersonal, interactive coordination
Background & theory : social domain
 Escapement and autonomy of relational dynamics
 Sensorimotor coupling dependant on each other
 Interpersonal coordination = laws of interaction
(De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007)
(Oullier & Kelso, 2009)
(Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009)

14. Interpersonal, interactive coordination
Background & theory : social domain
 Escapement and autonomy of relational dynamics
 Sensorimotor coupling dependant on each other
 Interpersonal coordination = laws of interaction
 Coordination of complexity itself
(De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007)
(West & al., 2008)
(Oullier & Kelso, 2009)
(Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009)

15. Rhythmic coordination, interaction & complexity
- Experiment -
Experimental task
« Tap a regular beat, together »

16. Manipulating the coupling
Experimental conditions
unilateral
unilateral
solo
solo
mutualmutual

17. Hypothesis
Hypothesis :
H1) Coordinative effects of interaction
H2) Effects on the complexity of behaviors

18. Coordination / togetherness
(unilateral condition)
Results (I)
Taps are mostly synchronous in the unilateral condition, but..

19. Coordination / togetherness
(unilateral vs mutual condition)
Results (I)
..stronger attraction toward synchrony in the mutual condition
p < 0.001
Unilatérale
Mutuelle

20. Stability of individual taps
Results (II)
More fluctuations in unilateral condition (p<0.05)
No difference between solo & mutual conditions (NS)
 Relational dynamics organize individual variability
Solo Mutual Unilateral

21. Complexity matching
- Correlation of fractal scaling of tempo fluctuations -
Results (III)
Individual fractal dynamics are coordinated in the interaction process
Autonomous dynamics of individual behavior are entangled in
autonomous relational dynamics
Solo Unilateral Mutual

22. Applications
Pathology & rehabilitation
Using Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS)

23. Applications
Pathology & rehabilitation
Using Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS)
No fluctuations, no interaction

24. Applications
Pathology & rehabilitation
Using Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS)
No fluctuations, no interaction
Fluctuating & responsive metronome (Hove & al., 2012)

25. Applications
Pathology & rehabilitation
Using Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS)
No fluctuations, no interaction
Fluctuating & responsive metronome (Hove & al., 2012)
Better stability than RAS (less effortful)
Fractal scaling of gait of Parkinson’s patients back to normal

26. Applications
Music pedagogy
 Relational dynamics help individual coordination,
stabilization and learning of movements
 Attractors migrate from the « traps » of individual
tendencies to behavioral regions that the isolated individual
cannot reach by himself : creativity, individuation /
emancipation
 Autonomous relational dynamics can do something for the
autonomy of individuals
(Kaddouch & Laroche ; Laroche & Kaddouch, 2014)

27. Tanks for your attention.. Let’s coordinate !
julien.laroche@akoustic-arts.com