Rest positions and quality of interaction

A position is defined as "a particular way in which someone or something is placed or arranged" (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ posi-tion?q=position) or "a certain arrangement of bodily parts"

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/position). A rest position is here defined as a specific arrangement of the relaxed limbs characterized by mo-tionlessness, absence of an anti-gravity position, and muscle relaxation (see Chapter 5).

The physical sign of the degree to which the person is open toward and vis a vis the other in her/his position is related to psychological openness and rapport (Charny, 1966; Scheflen, 1973). There is a significant relationship between the therapist’s and the patient’s rest position openness and accessibility (Davis, 1985). Physicians with open arm positions were judged more positively than those with a closed arm position (Harrigan & Rosenthal, 1983). This was con-firmed by a later study by Harrigan, Oxman, Rosenthal (1985), in which physi-cians with arms in symmetrical, side-by-side positions (and uncrossed legs) were rated more positively. Adopting closed positions as compared to open po-sitions increases negative emotions (Roosberg & Gempton, 1993).

Another perspective on rest position and interaction is taken in the structural approach, which was introduced to movement behaviour research by Birdwhis-tell (1952). As a researcher with the background of cultural anthropology and structural linguistics, Birdwhistell regarded any body movement as an arbitrary sign that served the maintenance and regulation of interaction. In this structural view, rest positions mark naturalistic units of behaviour and reflect the organiza-tion and structure of interacorganiza-tion (Scheflen, 1963, 1973). Certain rest posiorganiza-tions in one partner co-occur with certain rest positions in the other, i.e., there are spe-cific combinations of the interactive partners’ rest positions (Scheflen, 1973;

LaFrance, 1982; Davis & Hadiks, 1990) (for a more detailed discussion on body movement in interaction, see Chapter 18).

2.1.5 Summary

To summarize, the interdisciplinary review evidences that there is ample empiri-cal evidence that movement behaviour is associated with cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes. More specifically, different classes of movement be-haviour are related in various manners to within-subject cognitive and emotional processes and between-subjects interactive processes. While gestures have been linked predominantly to cognitive processes, self-touch has been investigated in the context of affective states and stress. Postures have been related to attitude, mood, and affective states, and rest positions have been analysed with regard to their function in interaction.

As cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes are all reflected in move-ment behaviour (Figure 1, arrows with straight line), movemove-ment behaviour can serve as a medium to explore these processes. Moreover, there is some evi-dence that the link between cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes and movement behaviour is bi-directional, i.e., movement behaviour, likewise, af-fects these processes (Figure 1, arrows with dotted line). More research is re-quired to fully explore the complex relation between movement behaviour and cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes.

Figure 1 Bi-directional influence of movement behaviour and cognitive, emotional, and in-teractive processes.

2.2 Body movements are associated with implicit and explicit cog-nitive, emotional, and interactive processes

In the above section it has been demonstrated that movement behaviour reflects (and affects) cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes. Therefore, move-ment analysis can be used as a tool to explore these processes. However, its need is questionned as in psychological research many questionnaires and semi-standardized interviews are already available to examine cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes.

A commonly known advantage of movement analysis is that it is observer-based. Therefore, it is more objective than self-rating instruments such as ques-tionnaires and then semi-standardized interviews, in which the outcome is influ-enced by the interviewer. Here, it shall be argued that furthermore, the specific potential of movement behaviour analysis is that it enables to investigate im-plicit cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes.

"Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is expressed as conscious ex-perience and that people are aware that they possess; … Implicit knowledge, by contrast, refers to knowledge that is revealed in task performance without any

corresponding phenomenal awareness.” Schacter (1992). Given this definition, many of the cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes as discussed above are implicit, such as interaction regulation (Scheflen, 1963) and the processing of emotions (Lane & Schwartz, 1987). Even cognitive strategies applied in spa-tial problem solving may be implicit (Cohen, 1984). This has been demonstrated in amnestic patients, who have lost their explicit memory. These patients may show over several trials a progress in solving the Tower of Hanoi Puzzle without being able to recall having practised the task or having encountered the appara-tus.

In analogy to Schacter’s definition, in this section, the term explicit hand movements is used for movements that the person is aware of when (s)he dis-plays them spontaneously or on command. The term implicit movements is ap-plied for movements that the person is not aware of when (s)he displays them spontaneously. She/he can, however, become aware of her/his movement during or immediately after the performance (compare sensory memory, e.g. Kaszniak et al., 1986).

With regard to the movement behaviour classes discussed above, there are differences in the proportions of explicit versus implicit display. While self-touches and the trait-posture are almost always displayed implicitly, gestures and rest positions may sometimes be explicit. Emblematic gestures, such as the Victory sign, or pointing gestures (deictic) are most often explicit (for the defini-tion of the gesture values see Chapter 3). Ekman and Friesen (1969) have re-ported that occasionally gesturer pretended not to be aware of the fact that (s)he performed an emblematic gesture. Furthermore, sign language is used explicitly.

Tool use actions are often performed explicitly, but patients with brain damage may perform automatized tool use actions implicitly (see below). In these ex-plicit movements, the retrieval of the movement concept or, during learning processes, the de novo conceptualization, are intentional and conscious and the gesturer is aware of his/her performing the movement. It is plausible that the cognitive, emotional, or interactive processes that are associated with the gen-eration of explicit body movements are partly explicit as well. As an example, the gesturer intends to show something to another person and performs a deictic.

Or, the gesturer is aware of his anger and performs an insulting emblem.

A great proportion of movement behaviour, however, is displayed beyond the mover’s awareness. This applies especially to self-touches and also to many idiosyncratic gestures. In this case, the retrieval of the movement concept is im-plicit. The movement is executed quasi automatically, and the mover is primar-ily not aware of the execution. The same applies to movement behaviours of continuous nature such as state-posture. As the mover is not aware of her/his state-posture or her/his fidgeting movements, it is plausible that (s)he is not aware of the underlying cognitive, emotional, or interactive process. Some ex-amples shall be given here to illustrate the link between implicit body move-ments and primarily implicit cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes. An unconsciously displayed and seemingly purposeless self-touch may serve

psy-chodynamically for self-regulation in a stressful situation. An implicitly dis-played motion presentation gestures may reflect how the gesturer perceives the dynamics of a personal relationship, while (s)he has not deliberately re-flected this impression. The opening of the rest position may reflect that the mover's attitude towards his/her interactive partner starts changing towards more sympathy. The conversion of a slumped posture into a more erect one may indicate that the mover's general mood has improved before (s)he her-/himself consciously notes of this change. Thus, the analysis of implicit body movements provides valuable insights into implicit cognitive, emotional and interactive processes.

As stated above, the primarily implicit display of a body movement does not exclude that, during the performance, the person may become aware of her/his movement or posture. As an example, during an empathetic interaction, one partner performs a self-touch of the face and the other one "automatically" tunes in but then becomes aware of his/her hand moving to the face. Catching oneself performing such an automatized behaviour is typically astonishing or even em-barrassing.

The proposition that implicit body movements are associated with implicit cog-nitive, emotional, and interactive processes, while explicit movements are re-lated to partly explicit processes is supported by the scientific evidence that im-plicit movements differ kinematically and neurobiologically from their exim-plicit counter-parts.

In a kinematic study, the very same movement, seizing and moving a lever, was executed differently when it was displayed implicitly as compared to being done intentionally (Bock & Hagemann, 2010). As an everyday life example, stroking one's hair back while being intensely engaged in a conversation differs in terms of movement parameters from stroking one's hair back as a volitional preening behaviour to attract the partner's attention. Moreover, implicit hand movements differ in their neurobiological correlates from their explicit counter-parts. Grunwald and Weiss (submitted) reported different patterns of cortical activity as measured with electroencephalography during instructed self-touches of the face as compared to spontaneous self-touches of the face, which the ges-turer performed during a stress test without being aware of it. Studies in patients with brain damage provide further evidence that explicit and implicit move-ments rely on different neural networks. Rapcsak et al. (1993) suggested that the movement ("praxis") system in the right hemisphere is strongly biased toward the concrete and context-dependent execution of familiar, well-established rou-tines including implicit movements, whereas the left hemisphere conceptualizes novel movements and is specialized for deliberate explicit movements. This proposition is strongly supported by patients with callosal disconnection (often split-brain patients), in whom the neural connection between the left and right hemispheres has been severed or damaged (see 2.4). These patients may be able to perform a specific movement implicitly as part of automatized routines, such

as shaving when standing in front of the washbasin in the morning, while they are may not be able to perform the same movement as a deliberate action on command (Liepmann & Maas, 1907; Watson & Heilman, 1983; Buxbaum et al., 1995; Tanaka et al., 1996; Lausberg et al., 1999; Lausberg et al., 2003 b). As an example, Mr. U.H. with callosal disconnection reported not being able to take something out of his trouser pocket with his left hand when he intended to do so.

The same action was performed by his left hand without hitch when he didn`t think about it (Lausberg et al., 1999). Rapcsak et al.'s proposition is further sup-ported by the alien or autonomous hand syndrome, which also occurs particu-larly in patients with callosal disconnection. It is characterized by an autono-mous action of the left hand, sometimes even against the will of the patient. A related syndrome is the intermanual conflict, in which the right and left hands act in a highly uncooperative manner. As an example, Mr. U.H. lifted the toilet seat with his right hand and the left hand closed it again. In clinical testing such as the Token test, his correct right hand reaction was often disturbed by incorrect left hand interference (Lausberg et al., 1999). Both syndromes, the alien/autonomous hand and the intermanual conflict, indicate that the separate right hemisphere can generate movements implicitly, i.e., independently from the motor dominant left hemisphere, which dominates the generation of explicit volitional movements (Geschwind et al, 1995; Tanaka et al., 1996; Marangolo et al., 1998).

To summarize, a great proportion of movement behaviour is displayed implic-itly, i.e., beyond the mover’s awareness. It is plausible that implicit body move-ments are associated with implicit cognitive, emotional, and interactive proc-esses, while explicit movements are related to partly explicit processes (Figure 2). This proposition is supported by the scientific evidence that movements which are displayed beyond the mover's awareness differ kinematically and neurobiologically from their volitionally performed counter-parts. Thus, regard-ing the initial question of this section, movement behaviour analysis, as it in-cludes the examination of implicit body movements, bears the special potential to investigate implicit cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes.

Figure 2 The link between implicit and explicit body movements and implicit and explicit cognitive, emotional, and interactive processes