‘Science inspired’ writings are those which set out to understand the practice and/or the teaching of the Alexander Technique, or aspects of these, with reference to scientific knowledge or theories. Excluded here is anatomy and physiology related to postural and movement mechanisms – see Use of Anatomy and Physiology.
‘How does Alexander teaching work? – Intention, empathy and the mirror neurons’ by Grant Dillon is attempting to explain how inhibition and direction is communicated to the pupil with reference to some physiology of neurons.
‘The man who mistook his brain for his self – And other tales of the self from neuroscience’ by Glenna Batson considers what current neuroscience tells us about the self.
‘Neuroplasticity 101’ Part I, II and III, by Glenna Batson on what recent science throws light on Alexander Technique teaching and learning.
‘The Alexander Technique and neuroscience – Three areas of interest’ by Henry Fagg considers the relevance of 1. ‘Two hemispheres’, 2. ‘The Two Action Systems: Two attitudes towards movement’, and 3. ‘The “comparator” model of motor awareness’.
‘The Alexander Technique and the science of self-regulation’ by Glenna Batson argues that the Technique resonates with the contemporary science of self-regulation, the ability to monitor our own thoughts, emotions and actions, and flexibly altering behaviour.
‘Research on the Alexander Technique’ by Kathleen Ballard; on collecting observation statements as a first stage in a investigation, with reference to Karl Popper’s philosophy of science.
‘Physiology and freedom’ by David Sheppard is a report of Dr Benjamin Libet’s lecture, ‘The role of conscious intention and conscious inhibition in producing a voluntary act’, to NASTAT’s annual general meeting in 1988.
‘What is consciousness for?’ by Henry Fagg suggests how the theories of neuroscientist Ezequiel Morsella might inform our understanding of the Technique.
‘Nine modern contexts for the Alexander Technique’ by Henry Fagg considers a number of other disciplines which may help contextualize the Technique: Ezequiel Morsella’s ‘adaptive action’, James Gibson’s ‘affordances’, Hubert Dreyfus ‘skilled coping’, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s ‘flow’, Tim Ingold’s ‘correspondence’, Victor Gurfinkel’s ‘postural tone’, Dorothée Legrand’s ‘performative awareness’, and Iain McGilchrist’s ‘attention’.
‘The Alexander Technique as adaptive behaviour’ by Henry Fagg hypotheses that the Technique can be placed within a theory which explores consciousness in relation to adaptive, skeletal muscular action; with reference to Ezequiel Morsella.
‘The “why” of Alexander or the ineffacable pleasure of awareness’ by Jonathan Cole; on the emotional aspect of perception, especially the pleasant emotional aspect to movement and position sense (the ‘joy of movement’), on affective proprioception.
‘Chaos and coordination: The Alexander Technique and the new science of complexity’ by David Mills suggests that the new chaos theory will provide a general framework within which primary control can be viewed as the organising principle of coordination of the action of the whole individual, and that Alexander’s concept of wholeness in action can lead to a new paradigm of human coordination.
‘Making good use of complementarity’ by Ernst Peter Fischer; with reference to modern physics he argues for a non-mechanistic approach to our self and our body.
‘Hierarchial human control’ by Lawrence Jones reports on what programming in robotics engineering can tell us about the primary control.