Register  /  Login      

Neurocinema – Nickologist

By CoperNick

Maria Clara Bertolli

 

November 15, 2019

 

The term “Neurocinema” was first proposed by Uri Hasson, professor at Princeton University, with the aim of combining cognitive neuroscience and cinema studies. This research-field relies on biofeedback and neuroimaging techniques in order to gauge the level of audience engagement during a movie. 

Uri Hasson and the Inter-Subject Correlation (ISC) model 

To analyse how a movie is processed by the human brain, in 2004 Hasson monitored a group of 5 people by means of a fRMI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanner, which detects brain activity by measuring its blood flow. The volunteers had to watch 30 minutes of ​The Good, The Bad and The Ugly ​by Sergio Leone. 

That’s where the Inter-Subject Correlation model developed by Hasson comes into play. It consists of an extended cortical activity resulting from emotionally stimulating movie sequences, and the subsequent isolation of the most apposite stimuli for each cortical specialized brain area. 

During the chosen movie, similarities have been registered in the brain activity of all participants. The activated brain regions correspond to the visual areas in the occipital and temporal lobes, the auditory areas in the primary auditory cortex, the brain regions implicated in emotions processing and the multisensorial areas in parietal and occipital lobes. 45% of the cortex has reported high levels of ISC during the movie. 

Not satisfied with the results, Hasson decided to compare brain activity during The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (an example of structured film with a heavy post-production work) and brain activity during a concert held in Washington Square Park in New York (a bare reality sequence). The latter registered significantly inferior levels of ISC in the areas implied in processing basic visual and auditory stimuli compared to the former. 

The comparison made by Uri Hasson between structured movies and a daily life sequence.
From: ​http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~nava/MyPubs/Hasson-etal_NeuroCinematics2008.pdf 

Uri Hasson proved that the effectiveness of a movie lies in the intentional construction of movie sequences able to stimulate all the aesthetic canons. For this purpose, ISC measures the ability of the director to provoke consistent responses among the audience. 

Hasson has refined his studies in the semesterly magazine, Projections: The​ Journals for Movies and Mind, which collects neuroscience researches applied to cinema. This a progressive work which represents a new science developing along with technologies, to the point that what is new today, could be outdated tomorrow.

Bodies of Research

There are four interesting companies working on neurocinema. NeuroFocus, created in 2005 by A. K. Pradeep and Caroline Winnett and later in 2011 acquired by Nielsen to create the Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience: it is based in California and adopts Electroencephalography (EEG) to provide neuromarketing services. MindSign, founded by Devin Hubbard and Philip Carlsen, also based in California, prefers the functional Magnetic resonance (fRMI) as their main resource. SandsResearch, in Texas, launched in 2008 by Stephen Sands and Ron Wright, designed a unique evaluation system to measure the brain activity sparked by any type of movie, advertisement or video sequence. Researchers invented the Neuro Engagement Score (NES), a measurement scale to show the individual neural engagement through seven crossed parameters of brain functioning. Each movie is being appointed with a score in a scale from 1 to 5, based on a crescendo of the audience engagement. Finally, experimenting in the rising field of Neurocinema, is the Behavior and Brain Lab of IULM University in Milan. Its distinctive trait is to provide constant training programs to spread the knowledge of Neuromarketing and all the sciences rising from it, Neurocinema among other. 

Science at the service of Hollywood 

According to Professor Carl Marci, the elements that boost the audience engagement in a movie are five. Firstly, a film has to grab the viewer’s attention as quickly as possible. Secondly, it has to build emotions through an immersive story. A movie has to be able to surprise the audience with twists and turns: it needs special effects as the catalyst for focus. Lastly, characters have to be strongly defined in order to allow the audience to get attached to the lead of the story.

An innovative path towards a new cinema experience, has been created by Richard Ramchurn, an English director graduated in illustration and animation at Manchester Metropolitan University. 

The poster of Richard Ramchurn’s latest movie.
From: https://www.horizon.ac.uk/map-object/seize-the-moment-richard-ramchurn-launches-his-new-brain-co ntrolled-film-press-release/ 

After the movie ​The Disadvantages of Time Travel ​in 2015, in 2018 he directed the short film ​The Moment​, the second example of a movie directly controlled by the audience minds. The data received by the EEG scanner worn by the single viewer are gathered via Bluetooth through all the length of the movie, 27 minutes. The system is able to compose in real time the most effective plot for each viewer: based on the response of the single person, the final story creates a unique and extremely personalized movie. In addition to the tale, the length of the sequences also varies based on the attentiveness of each viewer, changing sequence when the focus drops. 

Neurocinema: a new balance between the human brain and the artificial machine 

The limits of this new branch are primarily three: legislation, ethics and the respect of the cinematic art. 

Neurocinema, still an underdeveloped issue, has not yet been subject to lawmaking capable of protecting audience from invasion of privacy. Even if in a different field, but still concerning promotional industry, subliminal advertising is forbidden by the n.74 legislative decree of 1992. As for subliminal advertising, also for Neurocinema, the distinction between targeted marketing and mind violation could result problematic. But, in order for this new science to be subject to regulation, Neurocinema needs firstly to be acknowledged.

Predictably, the strongest critique brought against Neurocinema concerns the possible ‘brainwashing’ operated on the audience, as well as a form of mind control. Is it fair to resort to brain scans and biofeedback technology to produce a more appealing movie, or is it called cheating? The danger is of widening the gap between independent cinema and mega-productions willing to spend millions as long as they see their movies collect massive earnings.

The last concern about the rising science of Neurocinema is that screenwriters, responsible to walk the audience through an intense and engaging storytelling, might almost feel deprived of their work. When a movie is revised as a result of brain scans and not of words, all the creative effort of those who have written that story fails. Moreover, if certain elements of the movie are shown to be always the most effective on an audience, do we run the risk of producing identical movies? The imprint left by the filmmaker would be less detectable.

One of the most riveting aspect of cinema is the endless attempt of directors, screenwriters and actors to enter the viewers mind to imprint intense emotions, to gift them with alternative realities and engaging stories. In return, they receive the gratitude of those who have been able to change, even if just a little bit, thanks to their work. 

Is it right that technology could overtake their job? To what extent Neurocinema is justified? And especially, could it represent a shortcut to creativity? 

 

Useful references

 

READ MORE ARTICLES AT THIS LINK