Content uploaded by Polina Zioga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Polina Zioga on Nov 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ICLI 2014 - INTER-FACE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON LIVE INTERFACES
Edited by
Adriana Sa
Miguel Carvalhais
Alex McLean
Published by
Porto University
CECL (NOVA University)
CESEM (NOVA University)
MIPTL (University of Sussex)
Design
Design (event): David Palmer
Design (proceedings): Joana Morgado
ISBN
978-989-746-060-9
ORGANIZATION
PLANNING TEAM
Adriana Sa
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
(general chair)
Alex McLean
ICSRiM / University of Leeds
(co-chair)
Miguel Carvalhais
ID+ – University of Porto
(co-chair)
Teresa Cruz
CECL / Nova University Lisbon
Kia Ng
ICSRiM / University of Leeds
Isabel Pires
CESEM / Nova University
Luísa Ribas
ID+ / Faculty of Fine Arts,
University of Lisbon
Maria Chatzichristodoulou
University of Hull
TECHNICAL COORDINATION
John Klima / Scratchbuilt Studios
THANKS TO
Raquel Castro
Silvia Firmino
Rajele Jain / VIPULAMATI Associação
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Samuel Aaron
University of Cambridge
Baptiste Caramiaux
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Miguel Carvalhais
ID+ – University of Porto
Maria Chatzichristodoulou
University of Hull
Teresa Cruz
CECL / Nova University Lisbon
Emilia Duarte
IADE Creative University
Mick Grierson
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Edwin van der Heide
Leiden University / Interfaculty The Hague
Martin Kaltenbrunner
ICL – University of Art and Design Linz
Alex McLean
ICSRiM – University of Leeds
Thor Magnusson
University of Sussex
Kia Ng
ICSRiM / University of Leeds
Rui Penha
Universidade do Porto
Carlos Pimenta
Lusófona University
Isabel Pires
CESEM / Nova University
Pedro Rebelo
SARC / School of Creative Arts Belfast
Luísa Ribas
ID+ / Faculty of Fine Arts,
University of Lisbon
Adriana Sa
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Daniel Schorno
STEIM
Franziska Schroeder
SARC / School of Creative Arts Belfast
Atau Tanaka
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
SUBMISSION REVIEWERS
Samuel Aaron
University of Cambridge
Joanne Armitage
University of Leeds
Matt Benatan
University of Leeds
Baptiste Caramiaux
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Miguel Carvalhais
ID+ – University of Porto
Maria Chatzichristodoulou
University of Hull
Teresa Cruz
CECL – Nova University Lisbon
Emilia Duarte
IADE Creative University
Martin Kaltenbrunner
ICL – University of Art and Design Linz
Chris Kiefer
EAVI – Goldsmiths & Sussex University
John Klima
Scratchbuilt Studios
Alex McLean
ICSRiM – University of Leeds
Thor Magnusson
University of Sussex
Kia Ng
ICSRiM / University of Leeds
Adam Parkinson
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Rui Penha
Universidade do Porto
Carlos Pimenta
Lusófona University
Isabel Pires
CESEM / Nova University
Robin Price
SARC / School of Creative Arts Belfast
Pedro Rebelo
SARC / School of Creative Arts Belfast
Luísa Ribas
ID+ / Faculty of Fine Arts,
University of Lisbon
Adriana Sa
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Daniel Schorno
STEIM
Franziska Schroeder
SARC / School of Creative Arts Belfast
Atau Tanaka
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
EDITORIAL REVIEWERS (PAPERS)
Till Bovermann
Berlin University of the Arts
Miguel Carvalhais
ID+ – University of Porto
Marko Ciciliani
IEM – University of Music and Performing
Arts Graz
Nuno Correia
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Mat Dalgeich
University of Wolverhampton
Pete Furniss
University of Edinburgh
Chris Kiefer
EAVI – Goldsmiths & Sussex University
Alex McLean
ICSRiM – University of Leeds
Andrew McPherson
Centre for Digital Music – Queen Mary
University of London
Tom Mudd
Goldsmiths, University of London
Luísa Ribas
ID+ / Faculty of Fine Arts,
University of Lisbon
Adriana Sa
EAVI / Goldsmiths, University of London
Tim Sayer
University of St Mark and St John Plymouth
Horácio Tome-Marques
ID+ – University of Porto
Ian Wilcock
University of Hertfordshire
Polina Zioga
Digital Design Studio / Glasgow School
of Art
PARTNERSHIPS
CECL – Centre for Communication
and Languages
(Faculty of Social and Human
Sciences / Nova University Lisbon)
CESEM – Centre for Studies in Sociology
and Musical Aesthetics
(Faculty of Social and Human
Sciences / Nova University Lisbon)
EAVI – Embodied Audiovisual Interaction
Group
(Goldsmiths, University of London)
EMCN – School of Music of the National
Conservatory
FBAUL – Fine Arts Faculty / University
of Lisbon
IADE – Institute of Art, Design
and Enterprise
ICSRiM – Interdisciplinary Centre
for Scientic Research in Music
(University of Leeds)
ID+ – Research Institute for Design, Media
and Culture
(Porto University + Aveiro University)
MNAC – Museu Nacional de Arte
Contemporânea do Chiado
Music Informatics and Performance
Technologies Lab
(Sussex University)
ZDB – Galeria zedosbois
SUPPORTS
FCT – Foundation for Science
and Technology
POPH / FSE
OPTEC Lda.
ScratchBuilt Studios
Nacional Filmes – Film Production
and Sound Studio
DP Creative
Teatro São Luiz
EGEAC | Câmara Municipal de Lisboa
220
ABSTRACT
Although the use of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) in the arts origi-
nates in the 1960s, there is a limited number of known applications in
the context of real-time audio-visual and mixed-media performances
and accordingly the knowledge base of this area has not been developed
suciently. Among the reasons are the diculties and the unknown pa-
rameters involved in the design and implementation of the BCIs. How-
ever today, with the dissemination of the new wireless devices, the eld
is rapidly growing and changing. In this frame, we examine a selection
of representative works and artists, in comparison to the current scien-
tic evidence. We identify important performative and neuroscientic
aspects, issues and challenges. A model of possible interactions between
the performers and the audience is discussed and future trends regard-
ing liveness and interconnectivity are suggested.
KEYWORDS
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), Electroencephalography (EEG),
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Wireless, Performance Art,
Real-Time, Liveness, Mixed-Media, Audience.
A WIRELESS FUTURE:
PERFORMANCE ART, INTERACTION
AND THE BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES
POLINA ZIOGA
Digital Design Studio
Glasgow School of Art
Glasgow, United Kingdom
P.Zioga1@gsa.ac.uk
MINHUA MA
School of Art, Design and Architecture
University of Hudderseld
Hudderseld, United Kingdom
M.Ma@hud.ac.uk
ICLI 2014 / INTER-FACE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIVE INTERFACES
PAUL CHAPMAN
Digital Design Studio
Glasgow School of Art
Glasgow, United Kingdom
P.Chapman@gsa.ac.uk
FRANK POLLICK
School of Psychology
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, United Kingdom
Frank.Pollick@glasgow.ac.uk
221
1. INTRODUCTION
The use of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) in the arts originates in
the 1960s with the pioneering work of composers like Alvin Lucier,
David Rosenboom, and others. Today there is an increasing number
of musical works in the eld, but there are still limited known appli-
cations in the context of real-time audio-visual and mixed-media per-
formances1 and accordingly the knowledge base of this area has not
been developed suciently. The reasons are merely two. On the one
hand, the low-cost commercial devices have only recently been avail-
able in the market, making the technology approachable to artists. On
the other hand, the design and implementation of BCIs presents several
diculties and is dependent on unknown parameters. However, today
the eld is rapidly growing and new approaches and denitions are
requested. In this frame we shall refer to the use of BCIs in the con-
text of real-time audio-visual and mixed-media performances as live
brain-computer mixed-media performances. After a brief introduction in
section 2 to BCIs and the particular diculties they present, we exam-
ine in section 3 a selection of representative works and artists, in order
to identify important performative and neuroscientic aspects, issues
and challenges and show how the development of the eld is changing
with the dissemination of the new wireless devices. In section 4 we out-
line possible directions for the future research and practices and we
suggest a model of possible interactions between the performers and
the audience.
2. BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES: LIMITATIONS, DIFFICULTIES AND
UNKNOWN PARAMETERS
Wolpaw and Wolpaw (2012, 3-12) dened a BCI as:
“[…] a system that measures CNS [Central Nervous System] activity and converts it
into articial output that replaces, restores, enhances, supplements, or improves nat-
ural CNS output and thereby changes the ongoing interactions between the CNS and
its external or internal environment.”
Among the non-invasive techniques used for signal acquisition in
BCIs, the most common is Electroencephalography (EEG). EEG, a tech-
nique that can be applied to humans repeatedly with no risk or limita-
tion, is the recording of the electrical activity along the scalp, by meas-
uring the voltage uctuations resulting from the current ows (Teplan
2002, Niedermeyer and da Silva 2004). The recorded electrical activity
is then categorized in rhythmic activity frequency bands,2 which are
associated to different brain- and cognitive- states. EEG is a very effec-
tive technique for measuring changes in the brain-activity with accura-
1. We use the term “mixed-media performances” as introduced by Auslander (1999,
36): “[…] events combining live and mediatized representations: live actors with lm,
video, or digital projections […].”
2. The EEG rhythmic activity frequency bands are delta (<4Hz), theta (4-7Hz), alpha
(8-13Hz), beta (14-30Hz), and gamma (30-100Hz).
222
cy of milliseconds. However, one of its technical limitations is the low
spatial resolution, as compared to other brain imaging techniques, like
fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), meaning that it has
low accuracy in identifying the region of the brain being activated.
At the same time the design and implementation of the BCIs pre-
sents additional diculties and is dependent on many factors and un-
known parameters, such as the unique brain anatomy of the person
wearing each time the device, the task/s being executed, the type of
sensors used, the location of the sensors which might be differentiated
even slightly during each session, and the ratio of noise and non-brain
artifacts to the actual brain signal being recorded. More specically
among the non-brain artifacts are included the “internally generated”,
such as the EMG (electromyographic) deriving from the neck and face
muscles, the eye movements, but also the heart activity, and the “exter-
nally generated” like spikes from equipment, cable sway and thermal
noise (Swartz Center of Computational Neuroscience, University of Cal-
ifornia San Diego 2012).
In recent years, with the accelerating advances in neuroscience and
biomedical engineering research, new low-cost devices which use wet
or dry sensors have been developed. Neurosky introduced in 2007,
the rst, to our present knowledge, wireless device for consumer use,
which was also the rst device with a dry sensor that did not require
the application of a conductive gel, nor skin preparation (bnetTV.com
2007). In 2009, Emotiv launched two wireless devices, the EPOC and
the EEG neuroheadset, with 14 wet sensors plus 2 references. At the
same time, alongside with the companies building new wireless inter-
faces, a community of developers and engineers working on DIY (do
it yourself) devices has also emerged, such as the OpenEEG project
(OpenEEG project 2014), which is a relatively well-known community
amongst artists and creative practitioners. This way and within only a
few years, the EEG technology has been made more approachable and
easy-to use and therefore the applications in the arts have radically
increased and the practices have changed. As we will discuss further
on, the new wireless devices help the artists to overcome important
constraints, but at the same time they also present new challenges.
3. THE USE OF BCIS IN REAL-TIME AUDIO-VISUAL AND MIXED-MEDIA
PERFORMANCES: NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND PERFORMATIVE CHALLENGES
3.1. KINESIOLOGY, FACIAL EXPRESSION AND NOISE
Since the rst works with the use of BCIs, performers have encoun-
tered considerable limitations to their kinesiology and even their fa-
cial expression; either in cases they use wired devices and electrodes,
and/or because of the contamination of the EEG-data with noise and
non-brain artifacts from the cranial and body muscles. A well-known
example is Music For Solo Performer (1965) by Alvin Lucier, which is
considered the rst real-time performance using EEG. In this work, the
223
performer has two electrodes attached to his forehead, while he sits
almost without moving on a chair, opening and closing slowly his eyes,
thus controlling the effect of the visual stimuli on his brain-activity and
consequently the alpha rhythmic activity frequency band, which is as-
sociated with a brain-state of relaxation. The electrodes are connected
via an amplier to a set of speakers, who transmit the electrical signal
and vibrate percussion instruments placed around the performance
space (Ashley 1975).
Another example is INsideOUT (2009) by Claudia Robles Angel, in
which she uses an open source EEG interface from Olimex, consisting
of one analogue and one digital board, connected to a computer. Two
electrodes, one on her forehead and one on the back of her head, are
connecting respectively the frontal lobe’s activity with the sound out-
put from the computer and the occipital lobe’s activity with the video
output. The sounds and images are projected on a screen and onto the
performer. They are controlled by the values of the signals acquired via
the electrodes and processed via the MAX/MSP software (Angel 2011).
In one of her interviews, Angel mentions that with the EEG interface
she could not move because it “is so sensitive that if you move you get
values [noise] from other sources” (Lopes and Chippewa 2012). Today,
the new wireless devices have provided the performers with greater
kinetic and expressive freedom, while in some cases they also include
lters and algorithmic interpretations which can be used to some ex-
tent for the real-time processing of the acquired data. However there
are certain issues, which will be discussed more in detail in section 3.4.
3.2. RHYTHMIC ACTIVITY FREQUENCY BANDS AND COGNITIVE STATES
The limitations imposed in the performers’ kinesiology and facial ex-
pression, like in the previously presented examples of works, have
further implications and result in additional performative constraints,
such as the inevitable focus in the control of only the relaxation state
and the associated alpha rhythmic activity frequency band. For per-
formers that are interested in using BCIs while engaging in more active
situations and states of tension, like for example in works that involve
intense kinesiology and speech, the use of wireless devices is indispen-
sable. Consequently they are also enabled to consider all the different
frequency bands, associated with a greater range of brain- and cogni-
tive-states. The EEG-data can be further processed and differentiated
according to the tasks executed and in consistency with the dramatur-
gical conditions of the performance. In this way the use of the BCIs as a
medium in live performances is enriched. Examples of such works are
presented in the following sections.
3.3. SPATIAL RESOLUTION AND THE HEAD VOLUME CONDUCTION EFFECT
As we discussed in section 2, one of EEG’s technical limitations is its low
spatial resolution, which is also further inuenced by the “head vol-
ume conduction effect” (He and Ding 2013), meaning that the recorded
224
electrical signal is further blurred, as it passes through the different
anatomical tissues of the head, before it reaches the scalp. The result of
this phenomenon is that positioning the electrodes or sensors on differ-
ent locations on the head cannot be easily associated with the activity
of specic regions of the brain. In neuroscience research, in order to
bypass this limitation, apart from the clinical grade systems that can
use up to 256 electrodes, there are methods and tools, such as invasive
BCIs, the complementary use of fMRI scans, as well as complex linear
algebra mathematical modelling. However, these techniques are cur-
rently not applicable to artistic performances and especially in cases
where low-cost interfaces are used with limited number of electrodes/
sensors, either wireless or not. For this reason, either the artists should
not rely the concept of their live brain-computer mixed-media perfor-
mances on the localisation of the electrodes/sensors or they should con-
sider applying a combination of pre-performance study and on-perfor-
mance use of computational processing, which however is complex
and therefore challenging.
3.4. RAW EEG DATA VERSUS “DETECTION SUITES”
The new low-cost wireless devices have not only given greater kinet-
ic and expressive freedom to the performers, but with their accompa-
nying user-friendly software, SDK (software development kit) licences
and a variety of connectivity solutions, they have enabled artists to es-
tablish communication with different hardware and boards like Ardui-
no, and software like Pure Data, MAX/MSP, Processing, Ableton Live
and others, creating prototypes and playful applications. This easiness
is largely achieved because these devices enable the real-time raw EEG
data extraction, but at the same time they also include ready-made al-
gorithmic interpretations and lters for feature extraction. For exam-
ple the user can view and process/map data under categorisations such
as “frustration” or “excitement”, “meditation” or “relaxation”, “engage-
ment” or “concentration”, which are differentiated amongst the differ-
ent devices and manufactures.
For example, Adam John Williams with Alex Wakeman and Robert
Wollner presented in 2013 a project, which uses an Emotiv EPOC head-
set in order to connect with and sent to a computer the participants’
EEG data, converting them to:
“[…] OpenSound Control messages, which were sent to a Mac where Max MSP used
the data to adjust the rules of a generative music engine. Tempo and sync information
were then packed along with the original EEG messages and transmitted to the Rasp-
berry Pi upon which the visuals were generated.”
Williams 2013
As it is shown in the video documentation, the software process-
es different inputs titled as “Bored/Engaged”, “Excited”, “Excited LT”,
“Meditation” and “Frustration”, which are associated with the Emotiv’s
“detection suites” (Emotiv 2014).
225
Lisa Park in her work Eunoia (2013), a Greek word meaning good-
will and beautiful thinking, reinterprets in a way Alvin Lucier’s Music
for Solo Performer (1965) by using Neurosky’s Mindwave wireless de-
vice, monitoring her brain-wave activity and processing the EEG-data
categorised in different rhythmic activity frequency bands, but also
states, such as “Attention” and “Meditation”. These data and the cor-
responding values are amplied and transmitted through ve speak-
ers, positioned underneath equal number of round metal plates, lled
with water, and associated according to the artist with the emotions
of “happiness”, “anger”, “sadness”, “hatred”, and “desire”. The speak-
ers vibrate the metal plates and “varieties of water forms” are created
(Park 2013).
Although the use of the aforementioned “detection suites” serves in
the artists’ hands as ready-made tools for the creation of inspiring and
imaginative works, there are two facts that we should bear in mind. On
the one hand the algorithms and methodology upon which the inter-
pretation and feature extraction of the brain’s activity is made are not
published by the manufactures. On the other hand the published neu-
ro-science research in the eld of emotion recognition via the use of
EEG data is fairly new. Thus, the use of these “detections” of emotional
states should not necessarily be regarded as accurate and therefore the
creative results may not be consistent to the artists’ original intentions.
Two examples in the direction of scientically established use of
emotion interpretation via EEG in the arts, come from the eld of com-
puter music research. The Embodied AudioVisual Interaction Group
(EAVI) at Goldsmiths, University of London, has developed a BCI toolkit,
that can be used with both clinical grade and consumer level devices,
and has the ability of detecting Event Related Potentials (ERPs) used for
“making high-level musical decisions”, like for example in Finn Peters’
Music of the Mind (2010) album and tour (Grierson, Kiefer, and Yee-
King 2011). For their under development performance piece The Space
Between Us, Eaton, Jin, and Miranda (2014) describe the measurement
and mapping of valence and arousal levels within EEG, for which there
are different known methods with well documented results. Similar
approaches can contribute to a new system of validation and evalua-
tion, enabling further advancements in the eld.
3.5. COHERENCE, SYNCHRONICITY AND INTERACTION WITH MULTIPLE
PARTICIPANTS
One of the most cited works, Mariko Mori’s Wave UFO (2003) is an im-
mersive video installation, where computer-generated graphics are
combined with the “real-time interpretation of three participants’ al-
pha, beta, and theta brain-waves” (Mori, Kunsthaus Bregenz, and Sch-
neider 2003). The participants are wearing EEG devices with three elec-
trodes/sensors attached to their foreheads, recording the frequencies of
their brains’ right and left hemispheres. According to which frequency
is showing higher activity, projected animated spheres on the ceiling
226
(one for each participant’s hemisphere) take a different/associated col-
our (red for beta band, blue for alpha and yellow for theta). At the same
time is also animated each participant’s brain coherence with a second
pair of smaller spheres, the “Coherence Spheres”. By coherence the art-
ist refers to the phenomenon of synchronicity of the alpha-wave ac-
tivity between the two brain’s hemispheres (Mori, Kunsthaus Bregenz,
and Schneider 2003). When this is achieved, the “Coherence Spheres”
are joining together. If all the participants reach this state, then a cir-
cle is created, as a scientic and visualisation approach to the artist’s
idea of connectivity. Coherence in Mariko Mori’s work also serves as an
example of a real-time interaction between the brain activity of mul-
tiple participants and the visualisation of the brain-data as a form of
physicalisation, which is the process of rendering physical the abstract
information through either graphical representation and visual inter-
pretation or sonication (Tanaka 2012).
More recently, the Marina Abramovic Institute Science Chamber
and neuroscientist Dr. Suzanne Dikker have been collaborating in a
series of projects, like Measuring the Magic of Mutual Gaze (2011), The
Compatibility Racer (2012) and The Mutual Wave Machine (2013), which
explore “moments of synchrony” of the brain-activity between two par-
ticipants, when they interact by gazing at each other (Dikker 2014). As
Dikker explains by “moments of synchrony” are meant points in time
when the two participants present the same predominant brain-activi-
ty (Marina Abramovic Institute 2014). Could we expect to see in the fu-
ture live brain-computer mixed-media performances where an interac-
tion between the performer/s’ and the audience’s brain activity, jointly
contribute to the nal creative output/result? In this case what kind of
new connections and cognitive issues might emerge?
4. TOWARDS THE FUTURE
4.1. LIVENESS AND INTERACTION WITH THE AUDIENCE
In real-time audio-visual and mixed-media performances, from experi-
mental underground acts to multi dollar music concerts touring around
the world in big arenas, liveness is a key element. In the case of perform-
ers using laptops and operating software, the demonstration of liveness
to the audience is a challenge approached in various ways. The Erasers
(2013) for example, transform the stage into a kind of audio-visual labo-
ratory, where the creative process and the different techniques they use
to produce moving images and sound, as well as the nal outcome are
immediately visible to the audience. Other performers use two projec-
tions, with one of them showing their computers’ desktops and the oth-
er one showing the visual output/result. A similar approach is also live
coding, a programming practice disseminated in contemporary music
improvisational performances.
In the eld of live brain-computer mixed-media performances, the
members of PULSE4ART group, awarded in Errors Allowed Mediterra-
nea 16 Young Artists Biennial (2013), have mentioned that in their 2014
227
new project they will engage the audience by having them wear the
headsets and contributing their EEG data to the performance, much
like the way it was realised in their 2013 project ALPHA (Pulse 4 Arts
and Oullier 2014). The project is an improvisation-based performance
with live music, live visuals and the brain-activity of two dancers wear-
ing two EPOC headsets extracted and mapped real-time to projected
moving images (Association Bjcem 2013). Also Lisa Park, in her demo
video for her upcoming performance Eudaimonia, a Greek word mean-
ing bliss, presents the idea of an installation with the collaboration of
eight to ten participants wearing portable BCI devices. As in her 2013
performance, discussed in section 3.4, the brain-activity of the partici-
pants will be physicalised as sound-waves, played by speakers placed
underneath a shallow pool of water, vibrating and creating “corre-
sponding ripples and droplets” on the surface (Park 2014).
From these and other examples a question deriving is: what might
be a model for interaction between the performer/s’ and the audience’s
brain-activity in the context of a live brain-computer mixed-media per-
formance and how could liveness be presented to the audience? In Fig-
ure 1, we present a proposal for such a model, which demonstrates the
collective participation and co-creation of the mediatized elements of
the performance. According to the model, the audience is made aware
of the liveness of the performance by realising the interaction taking
place among its EEG activity, the audio and visual outputs and nally
the performer/s themselves.
Figure 1 A model of interactions between the performer/s and the audience in live
brain-computer mixed-media performances.
The model currently serves as the basis for the development by the
authors of a new multi-brain EEG-based BCI system, which will be used
228
in the context of a new live brain-computer mixed-media performance,
due to be presented in the coming months.
4.2. INTERCONNECTIVITY
As the research and development of applications are advancing, new
possibilities are emerging for the BCIs to connect with other devices,
and ultimately the World Wide Web. The idea of using technology,
sensors and computers to connect the human body to the Internet is
not new in the arts. Stelarc, a performance artist using biotechnology,
robotics, virtual reality systems and the Internet, probes and acousti-
cally amplies his own body (Stelarc 2014). During the Telepolis event
that took place in November 1995, a series of sensors were attached
to different parts of his body, connected to a computer with a “touch
screen interface & muscle stimulation circuitry”, and via the computer
to the World Wide Web (Smith 2005). Through a “performance web-
site” the audience remotely viewed, accessed, and actuated the body by
clicking/sending commands to the computer interface located together
with Stelarc at the performance site. The result was causing the body to
move involuntary (Stelarc 1995).
In August 2013 Rao and Stocco conducted in the University of Wash-
ington the pilot study Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans. In the
published research report is described the rst brain-to-brain interface
between two humans, which transmits EEG signals recorded from the
rst participant to the second over the internet (Rao et al. 2014). In
August 2014 Grau et al. published the results of a series of experiments
with established “internet-mediated B2B [Brain to Brain] communica-
tion by combining a BCI […] with a CBI [Computer-Brain Interface]”.
Of course the Brain to Brain research is a newly-born scientic break-
through and therefore currently far from being applicable in the arts.
However, the use of EEG data transferred via the internet is a reality
and it is only a matter of time to witness similar applications in the
context of live brain-computer mixed-media performances, the practices
and theories of interconnectivity.
5. CONCLUSIONS
There is no doubt that the new wireless devices are not only the future,
but already the present in the eld of live brain-computer mixed-media
performances. Artists are not only enabled with the new EEG technolo-
gies to use their own brain in their creative practices in the most direct
way made so far possible, but they are also given a new freedom of
access, interpretation, communication, interaction, and the ability to
investigate new performative patterns.
The presented and discussed artists and their work is only a sam-
ple of the continuously increasing number of imaginative applications,
creative and playful ideas that have emerged within only a few years.
The new wireless devices help performers to overcome the so far dom-
229
inant constraints, providing them with greater kinetic and expressive
freedom, but at the same time they also present new challenges. By tak-
ing into account both the advantages and disadvantages, the opportu-
nities and limitations of the technology, in comparison with the current
scientic research and methodologies, artists can enrich their practices
in a meaningful and consistent to the medium way. They will be able to
contribute to the advancement of the eld and the creation of a greater
and more validated area of investigation in discourse with other rele-
vant practices. We expect in the near future much progress and new
aesthetic experiences intersecting and transcending the boundaries of
performance and new media art, experimental psychology, computa-
tional neuroscience, and modern brain-computer interface design.
REFERENCES
Angel, Claudia Robles. “Creating Interactive Multimedia Works with Bio-data” in
NIME ’11 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Oslo:
NIME ‘11, 30 May – 1 June, 2011, 421-424.
Ashley, Robert. “Music with Roots in the Aether – Alvin Lucier (1975)”. UbuWeb video,
121:35. Accessed April 19, 2014. http://ubu.com/lm/aether_lucier.html.
Association Bjcem. ERRORS ALLOWED MEDITERRANEA 16 YOUNG ARTISTS BIENNI-
AL ANCONA 2013. Macerata: Quodlibet srl, 2013.
Auslander, Philip. Liveness: Performance in mediatized culture. New York: Routledge,
1999.
bnetTV.com. “NeuroSky – CTIA 2007”. Youtube video. 05:28. Posted by “NeuroSky, Inc.”,
2007. Accessed April 4, 2014. https:// youtube.com/watch?v=qTYXOMuVL5E.
Dikker, Suzanne. “REAL-TIME INTERACTIVE BRAIN INSTALLATIONS”. Last Modied
September 2014. Accessed October 19, 2014. https://les.nyu.edu/sd1083/public/art.html.
Eaton, Joel, Jin, Weiwei, and Miranda, Eduardo. “The Space Between Us: A Live Perfor-
mance with Musical Score Generated via Affective Correlates Measured in EEG of One
Performer and an Audience Member” in NIME’14 International Conference on New
Interfaces for Musical Expression. London: NIME ‘14, June 30 – July 03, 2014, 593-596.
Emotiv. “Emotiv eStore”. Accessed October 20, 2014. http://emotiv.com/store/compare.
Grau, Carles, Ginhoux, Romuald, Riera, Alejandro, Nguyen ,Thanh Lam, Chauvat
Hubert, Berg, Michel, Amengual, Julia L., Pascual-Leone, Alvaro, Runi, Giulio.
“Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technol-
ogies”. PLoS ONE 9(8) (2014): e105225. Accessed October21, 2014. doi:10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0105225.
Grierson, Mick, Kiefer, Chris, and Yee-King, Matthew. “PROGRESS REPOST ON THE
EAVI BCI TOOLKIT FOR MUSIC: MUSICAL APPLICATIONS OF ALGORITHMS FOR
USE WITH CONSUMER BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACES.” in Proccedings of the Inter-
national Computer Music Conference 2011. University of Hudderseld, UK: 31 July
– 5 August 2011, 110-113.
He, Bin and Ding, Lei. “Electrophysiological Mapping and Neuroimaging”. In: Neural
Engineering, edited by Bin He. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 2013.
Lopes, Pedro and Chippewa, Jef. “Performing Biological Bodies An open conversation
with Marco Donnarumma, Claudia Robles and Peter Kirn at Body Controlled #4
(Berlin, 11–15 July 2012)”. eContact! 14.2 – Biotechnological Performance Practice/
Pratiques de performance biotechnologique (July / juillet 2012). Montréal: Commu-
nauté électroacoustique canadienne / Canadian Electroacoustic Community. Ac-
cessed March 25, 2014. http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/14_2/lopes_bc4-interview.html.
Marina Abramovic Institute. “Out of the Lab”. Accessed October 19, 2014. http://www.
immaterial.org/content/2014/6/9/out-of-the-lab.
Mori, Mariko, Kunsthaus Bregenz, and Schneider, Eckhard. Mariko Mori: wave
UFO. Köln: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König, 2003.
Niedermeyer, Ernst and da Silva, Fernando Lopes. Electroencephalography: Basic
Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields. Philadelphia ; London: Lippin-
cot Williams & Wilkins, 2004.
OpenEEG project. “Welcome to the OpenEEG project”. Accessed April 22, 2014. http://
openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html.
Park, Lisa. “Eunoia”. 2013. Accessed October 19, 2014. http://www.thelisapark.com/#/
eunoia.
———. “eunoia (about the process)”. Vimeo video, 05:33. Posted by “Lisa Park”, 2013.
Accessed October 19, 2014. https://vimeo.com/67935519.
———. “Eudaimonia”. Vimeo video, 02:23. Posted by “Lisa Park”, 2014. Accessed Octo-
ber 19, 2014. https://vimeo.com/85057000.
Pulse 4 Arts and Oullier, Olivier. “Interview: Pulse 4 Arts & Olivier Oullier talk about The
Neuromix and their projects for 2014”. La Nuit Magazine, January 9, 2014. Accessed
April 19, 2014. http://lanuitmagazine.com/2014/01/09/interview-pulse-4-arts-olivier-oul-
lier-talk-about-the-neuromix-and-their-projects-for-2014 (webpage discontinued).
Rao, Rajesh P.N., Stocco, Andrea, Bryan, Mathew, Sarma, Devapratim, Youngquist,
Tiffany M., Wu, Joseph, and Prat, Chantel. A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in
Humans. University of Washington Computer Science and Engineering. Technical
Report No. UW-CSE-14-07-01. July, 2014. Accessed October 22, 2014. http://homes.
cs.washington.edu/~rao/brain2brain/UW-CSE-14-07-01.PDF.pdf
Smith, Marquard, ed. STELARC THE MONOGRAPH. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.
Stelarc. “Fractal Flesh”. 1995. Accessed April 22, 2014. http://stelarc.va.com.au/projects/
fractal/ffvid.html.
———. “BIOGRAPHY”. Accessed October 20, 2014. http://stelarc.org/?catID=20239.
Swartz Center of Computational Neuroscience, University of California San Die-
go. “Introduction To Modern Brain-Computer Interface Design Wiki”. Last modied
June 10, 2014. Accessed September 24, 2014. http://sccn.ucsd.edu/wiki/Introduction_
To_Modern_Brain-Computer_Interface_Design.
Tanaka, Atau. “BioMuse to Bondage: Corporeal Interaction in Performance and Exhi-
bition”. In: Intimacy Across Visceral and Digital Performance, edited by Maria Chat-
zichristodoulou and Rachel Zerihan. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Teplan, Michal. “FUNDAMENTALS OF EEG MEASUREMENT”. MEASUREMENT SCI-
ENCE REVIEW Volume 2, Section 2 (2002): 1-11.
The Erasers. “About”. Accessed April 21, 2014. http://theerasers.org/about.
Williams, Adam John. “Adam John Williams speaks on BBC Tech News about EEG-con-
trolled generative music”. Youtube video, 01:33. Posted by “Adam John William”,
January 2, 2014. Accessed April 18, 2014. http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrY42RS9f0k.
Wolpaw, Jonathan R. and Wolpaw, Elizabeth W. “Brain-computer interfaces: some-
thing new under the sun”. In: Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice,
edited by Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Elizabeth W. Wolpaw. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012.
