/
CHAPTER  The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o
CHAPTER  The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o

CHAPTER The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o - PDF document

danika-pritchard
danika-pritchard . @danika-pritchard
Follow
466 views | Public

CHAPTER The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o - Description

Morphologically the term implies the scientific study of neural aspects of the perception of artworks such as paintings or elements of artworks such as musical intervals We are concerned however that practitioners of this new field may not be aware ID: 34793 Download Pdf

Tags :

Morphologically the term implies

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Please download the presentation from below link

Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "CHAPTER The Arts are More than Aestheti..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation on theme: "CHAPTER The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o"— Presentation transcript

CHAPTER4TheArtsareMorethanAesthetics:NeuroaestheticsasNarrowAestheticsStevenBrownandEllenDissanayakeNeuroaestheticsisayoungenoughfieldthatthereseemstobenoestablishedviewofitspropersubjectmatter.Morphologically,thetermimpliesthescientificstudyofneuralaspectsoftheperceptionofartworkssuchaspaintings,orelementsofartworkssuchasmusicalintervals.Weareconcerned,however,thatpractitionersofthisnewfieldmaynotbeawareofthetremendousambiguitiesinherentinthetermsaestheticsŽandart,Žonesthatlimitaproperunderstandingofhumanartbehavior.Connotationsofthesetermsareparticularlyinappropriateandmis-leadingwhenconsideringtheexperiences,practices,andfunctionsoftheartsinpreindustrial,folk,aboriginal,orPleistocenesocieties,andevenincontemporarypopularculture.ItisonlyduringthelasttwocenturiesthatthetermsArtŽ(withanimpliedcapitalA,connotinganindependentrealmofprestigiousandrevelatoryworks)andaestheticsŽ(asaunique,andevenreverential,modeofattentiontowardsuchworks)havetakenontheirpresentelitistmeaningsandbecomeunavoidablyintertwined(Davies,2006;Shiner,2001).ThewordaestheticŽ(fromtheGreek,havingtodowiththesenses)wasfirstusedin1735byaGermanphilosopherinabookonpoetry(Baumgarten,1735/1954),andsincethattimehasbeenemployedintwodifferent,butnotalwaysdistinct,ways.EnlightenmentphilosophersandtheirfollowersgraduallydevelopedthenowelitistnotionofaestheticŽ„aspecialformofdisinterestedknowledgeandappreciation„todescribetheemotionalresponseelicitedbytheperceptionofgreatworksofart(Shiner,2001).Whilethismeaningofaesthetichasstronghistoricalconnectionswiththeartsandwithartworks,asecondusagehascometorefertoanyvaluesystemhavingtodowiththeappreciationofbeauty,suchasthebeautyofnature.Inrecentdecades,forexample,someethologistsandevolutionarypsychologistshaveadoptedthissecond,broadernotionofaestheticsinanewfield,originallycalledlandscape aestheticsŽ(Appleton,1990;Orians,2001;Ruso,Renninger,&Atzwanger,2003)orDarwinianaestheticsŽ(Thornhill,1998),butgenerallycalledevolutionaryaestheticsŽ(Voland&Grammer,2003)today.Evolutionaryaestheticsinvestigatessensorypreferencesinanimalsandhumansthatpromoteselectiveattentionandpositiveemotionalresponsestowardobjectsintheenvironmentthatleadtoadaptivedecisionmakingandproblemsolving(Orians,2001).Objectsperceivedinthismannerareconsideredtobebeautiful(Thornhill,1998).FollowingDarwin(1871),whonotedthatanimals(especiallybirds)seemedtoappreciatebeautyandwhoattributedthespectacularcolorsandpatternsofmalebirdstofemalechoice,someworkersinevolutionaryaestheticshaveproposedthathumanartarosebysexualselectioninasimilarmannertothecourtshipdisplaysperformedbymalebirdstoattractfemalesformating(e.g.,Miller,2000,2001).Althoughworkersinevolutionaryaestheticsdonotovertlyadheretotheelitistphilosophicalconnotationsofaesthetics,someneverthelesswriteasthoughtheirfindingsareapplicabletoanunderstandingofhumanresponsestoartandbeauty(e.g.,Thornhill,1998).Judgingbytheworkpublishedthusfarunderthebannerofneuroaesthetics,thisfieldseemstobeexpresslyconcernedwithart,notleastthemasterpiecesofEuropeanvisualartandevenabstractpaintings(e.g.,Kawabata&Zeki,2004;Solso,1994;Vartanian&Goel,2004;Zeki,1999).WesuspectthatthisinterestinelitevisualartarisesfromtheimplicitassociationofbothartandaestheticswiththeeighteenthcenturyEurocentricnotionsoftheseconcepts.Inthischapter,wesuggestthatpresent-dayneuroaestheticsislimitedinthreeimportantrespectsbyanarrow,culture-boundsenseofaesthetics/art.First,itsaestheticdata„basedonsensoryperceptsandpreferences„applytoamuchwiderrangeofobjectsthanartobjects.Neuroaesthetics,likeevolutionaryaestheticsandotherscientificnotionsofaesthetics,ispredicatedonaclassofemotionswhosebiologicalfunctionistogenerateanappraisalofthepropertiesofobjects.However,aestheticemotions,seenhereasgeneralappraisalsoflikeordislike,aresuperordinate:theyarecriticalinalllivingcreaturesforassessingawidevarietyofobjectsimportantforbiologicalsurvival,asinevolutionaryaesthetics,wheretheyincludelandscapes,foodquality,theappearanceandbehaviorsofconspecifics,andsoforth.Strictlyspeaking,itisthisbroadarea„notworksofartalone„thatdefinesthedomainofneuroaesthetics;abettergoalforthefieldwouldbetodevelopageneral,superordinatetheoryofaestheticresponsesthatappliestoallappraisedobjectsratherthanonelinkedtoartworks(orlandscapesormates,forthatmatter).Aspresentlyconceived,neuroaestheticshasnowayofdistinguishingartfromnonart.Characterizingtheneuralresponseselicitedbyviewingamodernabstractpaintingbegsthequestionthatwhatisbeingassessedisaresponsetoart.Inthenextsection,wepresentaviewofartasabehaviorofartification,Žaneologismthatallowsustothinkofartasanactivity,inotherwordsassomethingthatpeopledo(toartifyŽ).Second,theartsthemselvesdealwithamuchbroaderrealmofhumanexperiencethanaestheticresponsesorpreferencesforfeatures.Afocusonsuchresponsesandpreferences,eveninindividualartworks,reducestheartstothelevelofreceiverpsychologyandsocialfunctionlessness,aspresupposedinmanyphilosophicalapproachestothefineartsbasedonEnlightenmentprinciples.Although44/NEUROAESTHETICS ceremonies,asbehavioralmanifestationsofcognitivebeliefsystemsaboutthewaytheworldworks(Alcorta&Sosis,2005),havesomecommoncharacteristics.Theyareperformedattimesofperceiveduncertainty,whenindividualsandgroupswishtoinfluencetheoutcomesofcircumstancesthattheyperceiveasvitaltotheirlivelihoodandsurvival(Dissanayake1992,inpress;Rappaport,1999;Turner,1969).Theyaretypically,combiningsinging,instrumentplaying,dancing,literarylanguage,dramaticspectacle,andthedecorationofbodies,surroundings,andparaphernalia.Inaddition,theyaretypically:evenwhenanaudienceobservesspecialistsperforming,theyjoininbyclapping,moving,shouting,singing,andsoforth.AsJohnChernoff,ascholarofWestAfricandrumming,hasobserved:themostfundamentalaestheticinAfricaisthatwithoutparticipation,thereisnomeaningŽ(Chernoff,1979,p.23).Theartsinceremonialcontextsprovideamultitudeofcriticalsocialfunctionsforculturessmallandlarge,includinghistoriographicfunctionsrelatedtoasocietysancestryandidentity;discursivefunctionsrelatedtothejustificationandfeasibilityofplannedendeavors;functionsrelatedtothemarkingoftime(e.g.,calendricalrituals[harvests],life-cyclerituals[weddings,funerals,births]);communicationwithdeities;reliefofanxietyandstress;socialcoordination,tonamebutafew.Amajorpurposeofartsactivitiesistofostercooperationinsupportofcollectiveendeavors,suchashunting,foraging,resistingenemies,buildinginfrastructure,andthelike.Theartsarealsothemajormeansofmaintainingsocialharmonyandamelioratingconflictswithingroups.Thegroupbenefitsoftheartsacrossculturesarestrongandwidespread.Reducingtheartsadaptivefunctiontoindividualsexualdisplay,assexualselectionistshaveproposed(Miller,2000),makestheartsintoacompletelycompetitiveenterprise,whenthereisanabundanceofevidencetosuggestthattheartsdopreciselytheopposite,fostercooperationandobviateindi-vidualcompetitiveness.Hence,whileweacknowledgetheexistenceofsexualdisplayinthecontextofarts-suffusedrituals,werejectareductionoftheartstosexualdisplay.Infact,ifaconnectionisindeedtobefoundhere,itismorelikelythatsexualdisplayisasecondaryoffshootofthegroup-assemblyaspectofceremonialritualsratherthanthereverse(Brown,2000).Oncethegroupcomestogetherforthebusinessofcollectivesurvival,therecanbeopportunitiesforsexualdisplaywithinsuchacontext.Wesuggestthatitisprofitabletoconsidertheartsnotasobjects(paintings,songs),qualitiesofobjects(beauty,consonance),cuestosensory-cognitivepreferences,orpassiveregistrationsofsensory/cognitivestimuli,butasbehaviorsofartification„thingsthatpeopledo.Overseveraldecades,oneofus[ED]hasgraduallyrefinedsuchaconcept(Dissanayake,1988,1992,2000,inpress).Artification(originallycalledmakingspecialŽ)referstotheuniversallyobservedpenchantofhumanindividuals(andgroups)tomakeordinaryrealityextraordinaryŽ(Dissanayake,1992,p.49).Anunderstandingofartificationanditsmanifestationsinhumanritualpracticesismadeclearerbyanapplicationoftheethologicalconceptofritualization,Žasdevelopedinthestudyofotheranimals(Tinbergen,1952).Briefly,ritualizedbehaviorsarecommunicativedisplaysthattakeordinary,unremarkablebehaviors46/NEUROAESTHETICS (Murray&Trevarthen,1985;Nadel,Carchon,Kervella,Marcelli,&Réserbet-Plantey,1999).Suchcoordinated,dyadicbehaviorishypothesizedbyDissanayake(2000;inpress)tohaveoriginatedasabehavioraladaptationthataddressedtheobstetricdilemmaŽoftwomillionyearsagowhentheanatomicaltrendtowardanarrowedpelvisinfullybipedalHomoerectusconflictedatchildbirthwithaconcomitantanatomicaltrendtowardenlargedbrainsandskulls.Amongotheradaptations(e.g.,separablepubicsymphysisinfemalesatparturition,compressibleinfantskull,extensivepostnatalbraingrowth),thegestationperiodwassignificantlyreduced(Falk,1998;Gould,1977;Portmann,1941),resultinginhelplessinfantsdependentontheircaretakersforyears,ratherthanweeksormonthsasinotherprimates.Amotherssimplification,repetition,elaboration,andexaggerationofaffinitivecommunicativebehaviors(e.g.,smiling,openeyes,eyebrowflash,headbob,headnod,softundulantvocalization,touching,patting,kissing)servedtoreinforceaffinitiveneuralnetworksinherownbrainand,whenperformedonasharedtemporalbasis,alsosetupameansofneuralcoordinationofbehaviorandofmatchingofaffectivechangebetweenthepair(Beebe,Lachmann,&Jaffe,1997;Trevarthen,1979).Mother-infantinteractionwouldseemtooperatelikearitualizedbehavior,wheresignalsfromonecontext(affinitive,prosocialbehaviors,observableinhumanadultsandotherprimates)arealteredandcometomeansomethingdifferentor,inthiscase,fosteranadaptivemutualemotionalbond.Dissanayake(2000;inpress)suggeststhathumansensitivitytoandcompetencefortheoperationsofartificationoriginatedphylogeneticallyinevolvedinteractionsbetweenancestralmothersandtheirimmatureinfants.ATHEORYOFEMOTIONWehavearguedthattheconceptofaesthetics,unencumberedbyitsEurocentricconflationwithart,appliestoawidearrayofobjects(asinevolutionaryaesthetics),andthataneuraltheoryoftheartsrequiresmuchmorethananeuroaestheticanalysisofsensorypreferencesforartobjects.Anunderstandingoftheproperconnectionbetweenneuroaestheticsandtheartsrequiresnotonlyafunctionalanalysisofthebehaviorscomprisedintheartsbut,equallyimportantly,agroundingofaestheticresponsesinatheoryofhumanemotion.Weunderstandemotionsasbeingresponsestoeventsorobjectsintheenvironment,drivenbyappraisalsofgoodnessorbadness.Theyarestronglytiedtogoal-drivenmotivationalstatesimportantforsurvival,asrelatedtofeeding,self-defense,mating,migration,andsoforth.Theconceptofemotionrequiresthreecriticalfacets:valence,intensity,andfocus.Valencereferstothefactthatthevastmajorityofemotionsfallbinarilyintothecategoriesofpositiveandnegative(Ortony&Turner,1990).Inotherwords,mostemotionalappraisalsareexperiencedaseithergoodformeŽorbadforme.ŽIncontrasttothisdiscretedivision,emotionsvaryinintensityalongagradedscalefromweaktostrong.Frustrationandgladnessarelow-intensityemotionscomparedwithhighlyintensecounterpartslikerageandecstasy.SyntheticschemasthatunitevalenceandintensityincludethecircumplexŽ48/NEUROAESTHETICS moralassessmentoftheactionsofanagent(e.g.,ofapolitician,boss,orstoreclerk).Hence,aschemesuchasthatproposedbyCloreandOrtonypermitsanappreciationofthemultifocusŽnatureofemotiontermsinawaythattheBETsimplycannot.Socialinteraction.Thefourthcategoryoffocus,whichweofferhereasarefinementoftheClore/Ortonyscheme,involvesvalencedreactionstosocialinteractionswithotherpeople.Whilesimilartothemoralemotionsdiscussedunderagency,theseemotionsgobeyondsimpleappraisalsofagency,andcanprobablybebestencapsulatedbythecomfort/discomfortemotionalspectrum.Dowefeelthatpeopleareonoursideoragainstus?Aretheysupportingourgoalsorthwartingthem?Whenouregofeelsthreatenedbysomeonewhomweperceiveasbeingbetterormorecompetentthanourselves,itisthisfourthcategorythatisexperienced.Onthepositiveside,thisinvolvesemotionslikelove,trust,andaffiliationthataresocentraltotheexperienceofthearts.Thesearerewardingemotionsthatarenotaestheticinnaturebutthatdefinitelyreinforceaestheticassessments.Wewilltalkmorebelowabouttheinterplaybetweenattraction(anaestheticemotion)andaffiliation(asocial-interactionemotion).Onthenegativesideisabasicemotionwhich,likedisgust,hascomplexmultifocusconnotations,namelyfear.FearisanoutcomeŽemotionrelatedtopredictionsofnegativeconsequencesforfutureevents(e.g.,stagefrightrelatedtoaclasspresentation),butfearisalsoastrongsocial-interactionemotionrelatedtoaperceptionofpeoplesintenttothwartourgoalsorhurtus(i.e.,beingafraidofsomeone).Beyondthesefourgeneralfociofemotion,thereisanimportantinterplayamongemotionsofasimilarvalencethattendtoactinamutuallyreinforcingmanner.Weproposethatthereisaunionofemotionsthatvaryinfocusbutaresimilarinvalence.Forexample,peopletendtoevaluateasmorallygoodthosethingsthattheythinkofasaestheticallybeautiful,andasbadthosethingstheyassessasugly.Hence,inmythology,thewickedwitchisuglyandthegoodprinceishandsome.Innumerouspremodernsocieties(e.g.,Basongye,Dinka,Igbo,Javanese,Lega,Senufo,Temne,Wahgi,amongmanyothers),thegood(refined,wholesome)andthebeautifulareconceptuallyinseparable(Dissanayake,1992;vanDamme,1996).Socially,weassessasmorallygoodthosepeoplewhosupportourgoalsandaroundwhomwefeelcomfortable.Wetendtofindthemattractive(ifnotimmediately,atleastovertime).So,aestheticandmoralevaluationsofagivenobjecttendtobeparallel(Brown&Volgsten,2006).Situationswheretheyfailtobesotendtocausefeelingsofcognitivedissonance;weareconfusediftheuglywitchisbenevolentorthehandsomeprinceisevil.Insum,wetendtomakeparallelappraisalsofmultipleaspectsofobjectsorsituations,andtheseappraisalstendtobemutuallyreinforcingalongthelinesofvalence.Tosummarize,anunderstandingofaestheticsmustberootedinatheoryofhumanemotion,whichincludesthedimensionsofvalence,intensity,andfocus.ThebasicemotionŽtheorylackssufficienttheoreticalsophisticationforanaccurateunderstandingoffocus.WebelievethattheClore/Ortonytheoryisaricherviewofemotion.Ofthefourfociofemotionthatwediscussed,aspectsofobjectsŽistheonemostdirectlyrelatedtoaestheticemotions.However,ourpleaistolookbeyondaestheticemotionsandrecognizethecomplexnetworkofemotions50/NEUROAESTHETICS olfactionandgustationwithinneuronsoftheOFCisthoughttomediatethehigher-ordersensationofflavor(Rolls,2005).Cross-modalassociationsarepresenteveninveryyounginfantsandincludevisual,kinetic,andvocalassociations(Schore,1994).OtherbrainareasthathavebeenimplicatedinemotionalprocessingshowmorevalencespecificitythantheOFC.Forexample,positiveemotionsareassociatedwithareasliketheventralstriatum(nucleusaccumbens),ventraltegmentalarea,periaqueductalgray,andtheirassociateddopaminergicandopiateneurotransmittersystems(Burgdorf&Panksepp,2006).Negativeemotionsareassociatedwithareasliketheamygdalaandanterior/ventralinsula.So,theorbitofrontalcortexisperhapsthebestcandidateforasuperordinateemotionareathatspansbothvalenceandfocus.Itisalsooneofthecorticalreceivingareasforvisceralafferents,whichthusprovidescluesregardingthemechanismbywhichitcanmakeanappraisalofvalence.Bymediatingacomparisonbetweenexteroceptiveinformationfromallthesensorypathways(viatheirwhatŽorobject-recognitionpathways)andinteroceptiveinformationfromtheorgansystems,theorbitofrontalcortexisinagoodpositiontogenerateanassessmentofgoodformeŽvs.badformeŽandhenceassignvalencetotheemotionalappraisalofastimulus.Inaddition,theOFCisaparalimbicareathatiscloselyconnectedwithmnemonicareasliketheparahippo-campalgyrusandhippocampus,thusmodulatingthememorabilityofstimuli.Italsoprojectsextensivelytosubcorticalmotivation-emotionintegrationcenters,especiallyintherighthemisphere(Tucker,1992).TheimportanceoftheOFCfortheappreciationofartobjectslikesymphoniesandsculpturesmayderiveevolutionarilyfromthefunctionofthispartofthecortexinmakingappraisalsoftheolfactoryandgustatorypropertiesoffoodsourcesandperhapsconspecificsaswell.TheOFCisalsoimportantforaffiliativeinteractions,whichisthetopicofthenextsection.AFFILIATIONvs.ATTRACTIONBothmusicalanthropologistsandpopularmusictheoristsagreethatWesternthinkingabouttheartsisbasedonanofartworks(seealsoculturaltheoristShiner,2001).ArtgenresareseentobecomposedofcollectionsofdiscreteartworksŽ(e.g.,books,symphonies,ballets)havingindividualauthorship(Stockfelt,2006).Becauseaestheticemotionsarethosethatrelatetothepropertiesofobjects,itisperhapsnaturaltoreducetheartstotheappraisalofobjects,namely,aestheticresponses.However,asdescribedabove,webelievethatatheoryoftheartsbasedexclusivelyonthepropertiesofobjectsisinadequate.HavingdescribedthefourfociofemotionsinourmodificationoftheClore/Ortonytheory,wefeelitimportanttoemphasizethattheefficacyoftheartsintermsofhumanbehaviorisdependentupontheproductionandperceptionofalltypesofemotionsandnotjustobject-basedaestheticemotions.Wesuggestthatoneofthemostsignificant(andunderstudied)emotionsthatdrivestheartsissocialaffiliation,anemotionofstrongrewardvalue.Thisistiedinwithourviewthatoneofthemostimportantfunctionsoftheartsistocreateandreinforceasenseofsocialunitysoastopromotecooperationandcohesionwithinsocialgroups.Infact,affiliativeinteractionsaretheverybasis52/NEUROAESTHETICS responsesareacriticalfacetoftheexperienceofthearts,neuroaestheticswillnodoubtprovideimportantenlightenmentfortheneuralstudyofthearts.Andyet,neuroartsologywillcovermuchmoregroundthanthatofferedbyneuroaesthetics.Asmentioned,theartstakeadvantageofallaspectsofcognitivelifeandcapitalizeonallfourcategoriesofhumanemotionsdescribedinthischapter,notonlyaestheticemotions.Inaddition,neuroartsologyplacesastrongemphasisonthebehavioralfunctionsofproducingandperceivingart.Itdoesnotreducetheproductsofartificationtotheaestheticresponsesofperceivers,responsesthatarelittledifferentfromresponsestoanyothersalientstimulus.Perhapsmostimportantly,neuroartsologyencompassesahostofcognitiveandbehavioralmechanismsoftheartsthathavenodirectaestheticfunctionsorconsequences.Featuresoftheartssuchaspitch-combinationrulesinmusic,rhythmicentrainmentindanceormusic,role-playingindramaordance,orimagecreationthroughdrawingorpaintingneednothaveanydirectaestheticfunctionandmayinsteadbeservingsocialrolesrelatedtomotivatingpeopletotakeuparms,communicatingwithdeities,educatingpeopleabouttheirancestrallineages,orassuaginganxietyandgeneratingcatharsisafteramisfortune.Aestheticemotionsareunquestionablyanintegralpartofthearts,buttheyareneithernecessarynorsufficienttocharacterizethem.Thus,anarrowfocusonaestheticresponsesisultimatelyadistractionfromthelargerpictureofwhattheartsareabout.Finally,totheextentthattheartsareperceivedasrewarding,thisisnotsoonlybecauseartworksareappealingobjects.Thereisawidevarietyofrewardingemotionsthatoccurwhenpeoplecreateandexperienceartapartfromsimplyobject-basedemotions,includingthepleasureofsocialcommunionandthemoralzealofcommoncause.Aharon,I.,Etcoff,N.,Ariely,D.,Chabris,C.F.,OConnor,E.,&Breiter,H.C.(2001).Beautifulfaceshavevariablerewardvalue:fMRIandbehavioralevidence.Neuron,32,Alcorta,C.S.,&Sosis,R.(2005).Ritual,emotion,andsacredsymbols:Theevolutionofreligionasanadaptivecomplex.HumanNature,16,Anderson,A.K.,Christoff,K.,Stappen,I.,Panitz,D.,Ghahremani,D.G.,Glover,G.,etal.(2003).Dissociatedneuralrepresentationofintensityandvalenceinhumanolfaction.NatureNeuroscience,6,Appleton,J.(1990).Thesymbolismofhabitat.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress.Bartels,A.,&Zeki,S.(2004).Theneuralcorrelatesofmaternalandromanticlove.Neuroimage,21,Baumgarten,A.(1735/1954).Reflectionsonpoetry.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.L.,&Jaffe,J.(1997).Mother-infantinteractionstructuresandpresymbolicselfandobjectrepresentations.PsychoanalyticDialogues,7,Blood,A.J.,&Zatorre,R.J.(2001).Intenselypleasurableresponsestomusiccorrelatewithactivityinbrainregionsimplicatedinrewardandemotion.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,98,11818-11823.Blood,A.J.,Zatorre,R.J.,Bermudez,P.,&Evans,A.C.(1999).Emotionalresponsestopleasantandunpleasantmusiccorrelatewithactivityinparalimbicbrainregions.Neuroscience,2,382-387.54/NEUROAESTHETICS Kawabata,H.,&Zeki,S.(2004).Neuralcorrelatesofbeauty.JournalofNeurophysiology,,1699-1705.Miall,D.S.,&Dissanayake,E.(2003).Thepoeticsofbabytalk.HumanNature,337-364.Miller,G.(2000).Thematingmind:HowsexualchoiceshapedtheevolutionofhumannatureNewYork:Doubleday.Miller,G.(2001).Aestheticfitness:Howsexualselectionshapedartisticvirtuosityasafitnessindicatorandaestheticpreferencesasmatechoicecriteria.BulletinofPsychologyandtheArts,2,20-25.Miller,W.B.,&Rodgers,J.L.(2001).Theontogenyofhumanbondingsystems:Evolutionaryorigins,neuralbases,andpsychologicalmechanisms.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Murray,L.,&Trevarthen,C.(1985).Emotionalregulationofinteractionbetweentwomonth-oldsandtheirmothers.InT.Field&N.Fox(Eds.),Socialperceptionininfants(pp.177-197).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.Nadel,J.,Carchon,I.,Kervella,C.,Marcelli,D.,&Réserbet-Plantey,D.(1999).Expectanciesforsocialcontingencyin2-month-olds.DevelopmentalScience,2,164-173.Nakamura,K.,Nagumo,S.,Ito,K.,Sugiura,M.,Kato,T.,Nakamura,A.,etal.(1998).Neuroanatomicalcorrelatesoftheassessmentoffacialattractiveness.NeuroReport,9,Nelson,E.,&Panksepp,J.(1998).Brainsubstratesofinfant-motherattachment:Contri-butionsofopioids,oxytocin,andnorepinepherine,NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews,22,437-452.Nitschke,J.B.,Nelson,E.E.,Rusch,B.D.,Fox,A.S.,Oakes,T.R.&Davidson,R.J.(2004).OrbitofrontalcortextrackspositivemoodinmothersviewingpicturesoftheirnewbornNeuroImage,21,ODoherty,J.,Winston,J.,Critchley,H.,Perrett,D.,Burt,D.M.&Dolan,R.J.(2003).Beautyinasmile:Theroleofmedialorbitofrontalcortexinfacialattractiveness.Neuropsychologia,41,147-155.Orians,G.H.(2001).Anevolutionaryperspectiveonaesthetics.BulletinofPsychologyandtheArts,2(1),25-29.Ortony,A.,&Turner,T.(1990).Whatsbasicaboutbasicemotions?PsychologicalReview,,315-331.Pedersen,C.A.,Caldwell,J.D.,Jirikowski,G.F.,&Insel,T.R.(Eds.).(1992).Oxytocininmaternal,sexualandsocialbehaviors.AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences,652Portmann,A.(1941).DieTragzeitderPrimatenunddieDauerderSchwangerschaftbeimMenschen:EinProblemdervergleichendeBiologie.RevueSuissedeZoologie,48Rappaport,R.A.(1999).Ritualandreligioninthemakingofhumanity.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.Reisenzein,R.(1994).Pleasure-arousaltheoryandtheintensityofemotions.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,525-539.Rolls,E.T.(2004).Convergenceofsensorysystemsintheorbitofrontalcortexinprimatesandbraindesignforemotion.TheAnatomicalRecord,281A,1212-1225.Rolls,E.T.(2005).Taste,olfactory,andfoodtextureprocessinginthebrain,andthecontroloffoodintake.PhysiologyandBehavior,85,45-56.Ruso,B.,Renninger,L.,&Atzwanger,K.(2003).Humanhabitatpreferences:Agenerativeterritoryforevolutionaryaestheticsresearch.InE.Voland&K.Grammer(Eds.),Evolutionaryaesthetics(pp.279-294).Berlin:Springer-Verlag.Schore,A.N.(1994).Affectregulationandtheoriginoftheself:Theneurobiologyofemotionaldevelopment.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.56/NEUROAESTHETICS