The "face" of HICP teaching

Clip art: Clker

Several earlier posts have looked at the question of the relative emotional loading of various points or quadrants in the visual field. (See the recent vowel color and intonation posts, for example.) This 1992 study of the effect of corresponding left or right brain lesions by Fedio of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke suggested another interesting perspective on why that might be: the right hemisphere area (connected to the left eye) is primarily responsible for determining and monitoring emotional state. The left hemisphere area, by contrast, is tasked with dealing with "the rest" of the incoming and outgoing data, so to speak.

That would explain, in part, why the right visual field (for most right handers) tends to be more emotionally reactive and visually "vivid." In effect, perception in the right visual field is less "filtered," according to the study. Consequently,  in your dominant eye you may typically "feel" a color or sound or image or experience  more intensely. (Observed Experiential Integration Therapy, which HICP owes much to, is based, to some extent on that notion of hemispheric specialization as well.)

In HICP, the model words and phrases used in the basic exercises (or protocols) and pedagogical movement patterns are designed to fit as much as possible within that general left/right specialization. Although I don't have a good icon that represents that perspective,  the drama mask with the black frowning face on the left and right the smiling face on the right is close. (Ideally the right face should be a lighter, bright colored; the left, a heavier, dark color.) Honest . . . that "two-faced" framework works . . . 

Haptic anchoring with eye tracking: for right handers only?

Clip art: Clker

Early in the development of HICP, I explored using eye tracking to enhance anchoring, a technique used in many disciplines and therapies. (See earlier posts.) What I discovered quickly was that that technique seemed to work well for some but, for others, it could be disconcerting or even disorienting to the point of feelings of vertigo and nausea! This 2008 research summarized by Munger of Cognitive Daily by Logan and Roediger, helps to explain why.

For the strongly right hand dominant, those procedures, in some contexts (such as recalling lists), can be highly effective. For others, the eye saccade exercise seems to downgrade performance. When working with individuals I still may use significant eye tracking of hand movement, but not if they are ambidextrous (as I am) or occasionally left handed, depending on their real eye dominance. In class work, likewise, we have learned that even excessive repetitions of basic haptic anchoring, which do not require explicit eye engagement (which should NEVER be necessary if done correctly anyway) should be avoided.

What is interesting is that a similar "follow the windshield wiper" technique is used to desensitize emotionally traumatized (left or right handed) patients in psychotherapy. You might try that version on "haptically or methodologically challenged" colleagues or students, in fact. It works "both ways," so to speak . . .

Advantages of 2-handed haptic anchoring in pronunciation work

A few excerpts from a sports websiteblog that could as well be describng beautifully the felt sense and effectiveness of haptic anchoring w/both hands involved:

Clip art:
Clker

. . . all of your upper torso will be behind the [stroke]
. . . two-handed . . . is more forgiving.
. . . two-handed . . . frequently known for hitting . . . incredible angles.
. . . two-handed . . . is easier to “groove” (hit consistently) and keep grooved than a one-handed
 . . . Without the extra controlling presence of the non-dominant arm, there is much greater potential for unwanted motion both horizontally and vertically.
. . . two-handed . . . from each side are identical, the learning that occurs on one side will serve to reinforce the learning that takes place with the other stroke.
. . . two-handed . . . are more powerful and are hit with a greater degree of control and touch.
. . . The less you attempt to do, the less there is that can go wrong
. . . when using two hands from both sides, I’m breathless by the end .
. . . What have you got to lose?

Game, set, match!

Eye dominance and HICP: the "shotgun" approach

For a small percentage of learners and instructors, eye dominance can be problematic. If one is strongly left-eye dominant, some of the  EHIEP protocols and activities can be either ineffective or slightly dis-orienting. EHIEP is based on the concept that discourse prominence, that is phrasal and sentence stress (but not word stress) must be anchored in the right visual field. The reason for that is that, for the right eye dominant, the right visual field and hand are more sensitive and responsive. For an instructor, facing a class, that means that some pedagogical movement patterns have to be done mirror image to what the students will be either doing or observing. Some report they cannot do that effectively.

Up to this point, we have been insisting that the poor, struggling left-eye dominant conform to the majority--most actions terminating in the right visual field. We are now beginning to explore the possibility, perhaps a bit inspired by the Shotgunworld blog, of having the strongly left-eye dominant learner who struggles with the system, instead work to the left, much as does the EHIEP instructor. The advice to the novice "shotgunner" is often to just switch to shooting left-handed. It is not as if  we have been "holding a gun to the head" of some learners . ..  but there are some interesting parallels. It is probably time that we bit the bullet and gave it a shot.

Hand sensitivity (probably) matters in haptic pronunciation work

Clip art: Clker

There is a long tradition in various healing arts for "healing touch" and training in how to develop hand sensitivity and awareness of the "energy" of our hands. Hand and eye dominance seem to be parallel. For most, one's dominant eye and hand will be the more sensitive. Earlier posts reported research on analogous "hot" spots in the visual field--which have been incorporated in various ways in aspects the EHIEP/HICP model such as placement of vowel nodes and pitch levels. (We have also researched and experimented with the use of various aromatic hand creams in sensitizing mind and body.)

There are tests of hand sensitivity which may be of helpful in understanding why some learners are better than others in establishing consistent pedagogical movement patterns  in the visual field, anchored by touch. With some type of touch sensitivity training such as this one, the process of working from potent haptic anchors might be improved significantly, at least giving the "haptically challenged" a (better) hand, so to (better) speak . . .