The concept of “kinesthetic space” is placed within the larger category of “perceptual-motor space”. Kinesthetic space refers to spatial information gained through kinesthesia and is fundamental to the subject matter of choreutics.

Designations of various “spaces” often run rampant in motor control and cognitive literature. For example, Paillard (1987) refers to a plethora of twenty-one varieties of space.* For clear discussions about spatial cognition the various types of “space” need definition.

IIB.10 Factor Spaces

The idea of a “space” will not be used in this study to refer to “factor spaces” which are statistical devices for spatially representing correlations among any number of different types of data (English and English, 1974). For example, “cognitive-space” or “representational space” are sometimes used to refer to how a concept can be mentally represented as the intersection of a set of any number of “dimensions” (eg. shape, size, colour, location) (Saltz, 1988).
____________
* Paillard (1987) uses the terms “physical space”, “extracorporeal space”, “extracorporeal physical space”, “environmental space”, “astronomic space”, “atom’s space”, “sensorimotor space”, “sensorilocomotor space”, “visuo-locomotor space”, “locomotor space”, “visuo-motor space”, “visuo-motor subspaces”, “retinocentric space”, “visuo-oculomotor-space”, “visuo-cephalo-motor space”, “proprioceptivo-motor space”, “tactilo-motor space”, “postural space”, “body space”, “reach space”, and “hand space”.
____________

The “joint space” (Hollerbach et al., 1987, p. 197; Pew and Rosenbaum, 1988, pp. 476-477), or the “‘intrinsic’ space of the joints” (Morasso, 1986, p. 21) are also used in this analytical way to refer to the “space” of a graph which plots the relationship (for example) between the changing elbow and shoulder joint angles during a movement (Fig. IIB-1). “Space” will also not be used here to refer to cognitive “space” (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974, p. 76) or the type of “workspace” (Morris, 1987, p. 406) used to refer to the amount of cognitive resources available for information processing.

Many types of space refer to the physical environment which is objective and exactly measurable.

IIB.21 Physical Space, Environmental Space, External Space.

The terms “physical space”, “environmental space” (Paillard, 1987, pp. 47-48), “‘extrinsic’ space” (Morasso, 1986, p. 21), “external space” (Souder, 1972), “objective space” (Huttenlocher et al., 1991, p. 355), or “objective external space” (Bernstein, 1984, p. 108) are generally used synonymously to refer to the actual physical spatial environment of the real world which is exactly measurable. This is as opposed to what a person might subjectively perceive about the environment.

IIB.22 Extracorporeal, Extrapersonal Space.

“Extrapersonal space” (Grüsser, 1983; Jeannerod, 1983) and “extracorporeal space” (Paillard, 1987, p. 43) are sometimes used synonymously as referring to the space which is outside of the physical body. Paillard (1987) combines this with “physical space” (see above) to produce “extracorporeal physical space” (p. 45), presumably the physical environment outside of the physical body.

Grüsser’s (1983) conception of the extrapersonal space includes all the space outside of the physical body. Since much of this space can be easily moved into it might be more accurately described as perceptual-motor space (see below). These include Grüsser’s “grasping space”, “instrumental grasping space”, “near-distant action space”, and “far distant action space”. Beyond these spaces available for body actions is the more remote visual space called the “visual background”.

IIB.23 General Space.

“General space” is sometimes used to refer to the space in the environment which is outside of the physical body and also beyond the immediate reach of the limbs (Laban, 1966, p. 10; Salter, 1977, p. 129).

IIB.24 Euclidean Space.

The term “Euclidean space” (or Euclidean distance etc.) is in reference to Euclid (365-275 B. C.) who produced The Elements, a compilation of Greek geometry which is still the basis for geometrical study today. The concept of Euclidean space is sometimes used in cognitive studies to refer to the straight line directions and distances (ie. “as the crow flies”) as opposed to distances and directions along a route which the subjects have actually experienced (McNamara et al., 1984, 1989).

IIB.25 Cartesian Space.

The notion of “Cartesian space” is in reference to René Descartes (1596-1650) who devised the “Cartesian coordinate system” according to which the location of any point can be specified with a set of coordinates. Cartesian space is sometimes referred to in cognitive and motor control research as generally synonymous with an objective environmental space (Hollerbach and Flash, 1982, p. 68).

The perception of space and motor actions within that space are intimately tied together. Perceptions of space guide motor actions along the routes to particular locations. In turn, motor actions transport the body to new locations from which further perceptions of space can be obtained. For example, visual spatial perception utilises eye rotations and head/neck movements to perceive stimuli from slightly different viewpoints. In the same way, head and postural movements add to audio spatial perception by providing more stimuli samples. Thus, the terms “visual space” and “audio space” both imply the participation of the motor system and are sometimes more fully referred to as “visual-motor space” and “audio-motor space”. The same can be said for kinesthetic space which might be referred to as kinesthetic-motor space. Likewise, the concept of a “motor space” also implies the participation of kinesthesia since this occurs together with motor actions.

IIB.31 Sensory/Perceptual-motor Space; Spatial Fields.

The terms “perceptual-motor space” and “sensorimotor space” (Paillard 1987, p. 58; Sauvy and Sauvy, 1974, p. 21) can be used to refer to space perceived through any of the perceptual-motor systems. Within any perceptual-motor space are individual spatial “fields”, variously referred to as “sensory fields”, (English and English, 1974; Grüsser, 1983, p. 328), “receptive fields” (Grüsser, 1983, p. 329), or “sensorimotor fields” (Paillard and Brouchon, 1968, p. 38), and which refer to the range of spatial stimulation reaching a particular perceptual system at any one moment (eg. the “visual field”; Collins, 1986; Sedgwick, 1986).

Occasionally the terms “perceptual field” (English and English, 1974) or “perceptual space” (Johansson, 1958; Paillard and Brouchon, 1968, p. 37) are used in a slightly different way to refer to the remembered aspects of the environment rather than those currently available to the receptors. This definition is identical with “conceptual space” (see below).

IIB.32 Visual Space.

The concept of “visual space” (visuospace, visual-motor space) refers to the space available through the visual perceptual-motor system. This is the most common conception of a perceptual-motor space and has received the most attention in cognitive studies. Studies of visual space and visual images have led to the theory of “visuo-spatial working memory” and the “visuo-spatial scratch-pad” which is a proposed mechanism responsible for mentally rehearsing, storing, and manipulating spatial information (Baddeley, 1983; 1986; 1990; Farmer et al., 1986; Logie, 1986; Logie and Baddeley, 1990).

IIB.33 Audio Space.

The “auditory space” (English and English, 1974) or the “audiospatial” field (Ruff, 1985) refers to the spatial information available through the auditory perceptual-motor system. For example, the direction and distance of sound sources can be localised and the shape of a path followed by moving sound sources can be perceived.

IIB.34 Proprioceptive Space.

The concept of “proprioceptive space” (Paillard and Brouchon, 1968, p. 38) or “proprioceptivo-motor space” (Paillard, 1987, pp. 46-47) is occasionally used to refer to the spatial information available through proprioceptive sensations. Paillard (ibid) appears to consider this as synonymous with “body-space” (see below) and “postural space”.

IIB.35 Tactile Space.

“Tactile space” (Hall, 1966, pp. 57-59; Paillard and Brouchon, 1968, p. 38), “tactilo-motor space” (Paillard, 1987, p. 46), or “tactual-kinaesthetic space” (McFarland et al., 1962) are occasionally used to refer to the spatial information available through the sense of touch; for example, the perception of shapes and textures of nearby objects which can be touched . Within the broad definition of kinesthesia (see IIA) tactile space can be conceived as a sub-space within kinesthetic space.

IIB.36 Thermal Space.

Hall (1966, pp. 52-57) refers to “thermal space” and “thermal spheres” in which aspects of the spatial environment can be perceived through thermal receptors in the skin. This might be conceived as a sub-space within tactile space.

IIB.37 Kinesthetic Space.

The notion of kinesthetic space is the logical progression from visual space, audio space, and tactual space, referring to the space perceivable via kinesthesia. In studies of “proximics” the sociologist Edward Hall (1966, pp. 51-52) uses “kinesthetic space” to refer to the perception of office spaces and hotel rooms according to how the arrangements of desks, furniture, etc., either permit or restrict body movements. Smyth and Pendleton (1990) experimented with memory for “configured movement” (ie. body poses) and suggested that they may be remembered within a “kinaesthetic-spatial system” (p. 304). When touch and movement are combined, it can be said to produce a perception of “tactual-kinaesthetic space” (McFarland et al., 1962).

IIB.38 Kinesphere (Kinetosphere, Strophosphere, Ergosphere).

The term “kinesphere” was coined by Laban (1966, p. 10) to refer to “the sphere around the body whose periphery can be reached by easily extended limbs”. Salter (1977, p. 54) refers to the kinesphere with the terms “gestural space” and the “zone of reach”. This concept has been well developed in dance studies, applied to the analysis of any type of movement event, and is used in assessments of motivation and decision making style, particularly in managers and manager teams.* The notion of a “kine-sphere” indicates a conceptual spherical-shape of kinesthetic space. However, this is a simplification of actual body movement. The size and shape of a person’s visual and audio space depends on features in the environment (eg. buildings, trees) which determine the visual and audio stimulations that can reach the sensory organs. Similarly, kinesthetic space is generally conceived as spheric-shaped but in actuality the shape of the kinesphere is modified somewhat according to constraints within the human anatomy. The actual shape of the kinesphere is considered within the discussion of the prototype/deflection hypothesis (see IVA.70).

The similar term “kinetosphere” was introduced by Dempster and Colleagues (1959, p. 291) to refer to “the total range of translational movement of the end member of a series of links”. This is a “space-shape which encloses a specific class of hand motion” according to “a rigidly imposed set of conditions, which limit the hand to purely translatory types of motion”. That is, a kinetosphere refers to the range of space available to hand and arm motion while the hand is held in a fixed orientation throughout. For example the hand can be maintained in an orientation with the palm facing forward while the arm moves through its range of motion. This restriction of the hand to a single orientation also results in restrictions of the range of the hand/arm motion.
__________
“Kinesphere” has been discussed in dance studies by Dell (1970, p. 69; 1972, p. 5), Hutchinson-Guest (1983, pp. 54-55), Laban (1963, p. 85; 1966, p. 10; 1980, p. 35), Preston-Dunlop (1978, pp. 3, 12-13; 1979a, p. 133; 1980, p. 22; 1981, p. 27), Salter (1977, p. 54), and Ullmann (1971, p. 6); within the broader analysis of any type of movement event by Bartenieff and Lewis (1980, p. 25) and Moore and Yamamoto (1988, p. 193); and in assessment of motivation and decision making style by Lamb (1965, p. 52), Lamb and Watson (1979, p. 51), Lamb and Turner (1969, p. 56) and Moore (1982, p. 68).
__________

Dempster and Colleagues (1959, pp. 291-292) coined other related terms. A “strophosphere” refers to the combined space from several different kinetospheres (different hand orientations). An “ergosphere” is used in the broadest sense to refer to the range of movement with “wholly unrestricted movement for any and all hand and forearm orientations”. Thus, Dempster and Colleagues’ kinetosphere is defined by rigidly imposed restraints, whereas their ergosphere is identical to the choreutic concept of the kinesphere. They also specify that “kinetosphere” is not another term for “workspace” (see below), however the two terms are sometimes considered as synonymous within the field of ergonomics (Damon et al., 1966, p. 317; Pheasant, 1986, p. 139).

Sometimes the kinesphere is also referred to as the “personal space” (Laban, 1966, p. 10; Salter, 1977, p. 129). However, “personal space” often has emotional and social connotations (see below) which are not part of a purely kinesthetic-motor conception of the kinesphere.

Space can be defined according to the motor actions and the type of body movement (limb-motion, self-motion) which themselves define the extent and shape of the space. The role of kinesthesia is implied within motor spaces since any voluntary movement will generate efferent data and elicit sensory feedback but here the stress is on the motor actions rather than the perceptual response.

IIB.41 Motor Space.

The terms “motor space” (Paillard and Brouchon, 1968, p. 38; Viviani and Stucchi, 1992, p. 232), “motor field”, or “physiological motor field” (Bernstein, 1984, pp. 102, 108) are occasionally used to refer to the space which is available to the body’s motor system and is identified as being “analogous with the concept of the visual field” (Ibid., p. 108). The similar notion of an “activity space” (Hall and Cobey, 1974) refers to the spatial patterns created by the activity of an organism or an object (eg. a ball). The notion of a motor-space is also always implied, and sometimes explicitly included, in references to perceptual-motor spaces (see above).

IIB.42 Work Space, Reach Space.

The concept of the “work space” or “reach space” has been well developed in the field of “ergonomics” (also called “human factors engineering”) (Pheasant, 1986, p. 3) and is virtually synonymous with motor space. Whereas “static reach” refers to the distance which a limb can extend away from the body, the “dynamic reach” refers to the volume of space which is within the range of the limb’s movement. Thus, “dynamic anthropometry” refers to the measurement of the range of motion of the body’s limbs (Dempster, 1955; Dempster et al., 1959, p. 289). This volume of space is variously referred to with the terms work-reach-space-envelope* and is virtually identical with the choreutic concept of the kinesphere (see above). The terms “workspace” (eg. Bizzi and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1989, p. 772; Hollerbach et al., 1987) and “reachspace” (Paillard, 1987, p. 46) have been adopted by motor control researchers.

The work space is described in many ways. It is the “space within reach”, consisting of the “space-geometry of hand motions” or the “range of hand motion”. This is “bounded by an intangible surface” which represents the “extreme range of motion” of the hand and can be considered as “the region of potential position of the hand point” producible from arm and upperbody articulations (Dempster et al., 1959, pp. 289-291, 303, 308). The workspace can be defined as “a three-dimensional region surrounding the worker, defined by the outermost points touched by the various parts of the body” (Damon et al., 1966, p. 317).
__________
Variously referred to as the”working area” (Barnes, 1963, p. 259; International, 1978, p. 157), “workspace”, “work envelope”, “space envelope” (Damon et al., 1966, pp. 134-135; Dempster, 1955, p. 559), “shape envelope” (Dempster, 1955, p. 580), “region or space envelope”, “hand reach” (Dempster et al., 1959, pp. 290, 308), “workspace envelope”, “reach envelopes” (Pheasant, 1986, pp. 138-140), “working space” (Barnes, 1963, p. 261; Critchlow, 1969, pp. 86-89),“working planes”, or as an “anthropometric and ergonomic space unit” (Critchlow, 1969, pp. 86-89).
__________

Dempster (1955) describes how the “maximum range” of movement for a body segment can be plotted on a sphere with the articulating joint at the centre. The “circumscribed area” on the surface of the sphere which marks out the joint’s range of movement can be called the “bounding surface”, “excursion cone”, “joint sinus”, or the “joint range” (pp. 568-569) and can be illustrated as “globographic representations of the joint ranges” (ie. a sphere at each joint with the joint range marked out within that sphere) (p. 566). When the range of a multi-joint linkage is considered (rather than motion at a single joint) this can be referred to as the “cumulative range of the end member” (p. 570) or the “cumulative space range” (p. 580). These can be considered to be maps of the “potential space” or “potential range” (p. 575), that is, the “space available for potential activity” (p. 577) for the particular body-parts.

Pheasant (1986, pp. 141-142 ; also Damon et al., 1966, p. 317) describes that within the reachspace or workspace envelope are various “zones of convenient reach” which refer to “a zone or space in which an object may be reached conveniently - that is without undue exertion”. The shape of a reachspace zone depends on the constraints of human anatomy. Different degrees of extension outward from the body are also identified as a “maximum working area” resulting from maximum extension of the limbs, and the “normal working area” which is the size of space “described by a comfortable sweeping movement” of the limb.

The notion of different workspace zones for different body-parts is identical to Laban’s (1966, pp. 18-26) identification of the zones for each of the limbs as a basis to identifying the fundamental body movement possibilities (see IVB.33). The distance that the limbs extend outward away from the body are also described in choreutics as “degrees of extensions” which are “restricted or augmented” and so create a “smaller kinesphere” or a “larger kinesphere” (Ibid, p. 41) and as “distance from center” in Labanotation (Hutchinson, 1970, p. 158).

IIB.43 Movement Space.

The term “movement space” is also sometimes used, generally synonymous with workspace (Bizzi and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1989, p. 772).

IIB.44 Grasping Space.

Grüsser (1983, pp. 327-329) uses “grasping space” to refer to the “immediate surround of our body” which is the “manual grasping range”. This is generally identical to the workspace or the kinesphere. Grüsser also describes the “instrumental grasping space” in which the grasping space is extended when the subject uses “instruments” or tools to extend the length of the limbs.

IIB.45 Locomotor Space.

“Locomotor space” and also “sensorilocomotor space” (Paillard, 1987, p. 48) can be used to refer to the space perceived when the entire body locomotes.

IIB.46 Action Space.

Grüsser’s (1983, p. 330) concepts of “near-distant action space” and “far–distant action space” are identical with types of locomotor spaces. This type of “action space” is considered to be outside of the reach of the limbs and its size is dependent on a subject’s body size and walking speed. The near-distant action space is as large as “the distance at which the [Subject’s] uncertainty appears when walking or running blindfolded”, approximately seven meters.

IIB.47 Body Space.

Grüsser (1983, p. 327) uses “body space” to refer to the space occupied by the physical mass of the body. This is distinguished from the space available to limb movement (which Grüsser terms the “grasping space”; see above).

Apparently “body space” is used by Pheasant (1986) in a very general way to refer to static and dynamic anthropometry and ergonomics since it is used for a book’s title but only briefly mentioned in the introduction and never explicitly referred to in the text. In reference to body space, Pheasant describes that its “form and dimensions should be derived from those of the human body, from the characteristics of the human senses and from the verifiable data of human experience” (p. 1). Likewise, Paillard (1987, pp. 46-47) considers “body-space” to be a type of “proprioceptivo-motor space” (see above) containing the physical body itself and also movements from one bodily position to another.

IIB.48 Body Space Hierarchy.

A hierarchy of body spaces can be envisaged ranging from the space available to the movement of a single body segment, to the space available to a multi-joint linkage. Paillard (1987) gives examples for the visual motor system of an anatomical hierarchy referred to as the “plurality of visuomotor space-structures” (p. 46). When the space is perceived by the eyes (retinal space) and eye movements, this “visuo-motor space” is more specifically a “visuo-oculomotor-space” (oculomotor; for six extrinsic muscles of each eye). When head movements are also included this becomes a superordinate “visuo-cephalo-motor space” (“cephalo” from Greek referring to the head) (p. 45). This process of designating larger superordinate spaces can continue by adding additional body segments to the moving linkage. When the entire body begins to transport itself through space it can be termed a “visuo-locomotor space” (p. 46).

Paillard (1987, p. 58) also conceives of this type of hierarchy for kinesthetic space or somatic space. For example, a “local sensorimotor space” might be the space “involved in pointing with the hand, using the wrist articulation only”. This might be referred to as the hand space or the wrist space. A hierarchical arrangement is suggested, consisting of “different sub-spaces (wrist, elbow, shoulder)”.

A similar body space hierarchy can be identified within Labanotation. When the notation is used for limb positions, it specifies the direction of the distal end of a limb (eg. hand, foot) relative to the limb’s proximal joint (shoulder, hip) (Hutchinson, 1970, pp. 32, 229). That is, the proximal joint is thought of as the centre of the body-limb space. Sub-spaces can be specified by indicating the body-segment to be moving, for example the direction of the hand relative to the wrist might be considered to be a hand space* with the centre at the wrist (the most proximal joint of the linkage). Higher-order spaces can be indicated by an “inclusion of the body in an arm movement [which] means that the upper section of the torso participates in the direction of the arm movement” (Ibid, pp. 253-254). The resultant movement is equivalent with conceiving of a whole-body space with the centre at (or near to) the body’s centre of gravity. This body-space hierarchy is identical to considering various body-points (eg. joints) as the origin of egocentric reference systems (see IIIA.26).
__________
* “Hand space” (Dempster et al., 1959, pp. 292, 313; Hollerbach et al., 1987, p. 197; Pew and Rosenbaum, 1988, pp. 476-477), the “‘extrinsic’ space of the hand” (Morasso, 1986, p. 21), or the “Cartesian space of the hand” (Hollerbach and Flash, 1982, p. 68) are often used to refer to the space available for hand motion as a result of movements of the entire arm . According to the body space hierarchy developed here this would be referred to as a hand / forearm / upperarm space, or as a whole arm–space.
__________

Types of “space” can also be distinguished which refer to memories of space and/or emotional feelings and attitudes about space.

IIB.51 Imaginal Space, Conceptual Space, Represented Space.

A space can be imagined which is not directly perceived from the real world but is a memory representation of a space previously perceived or a conceptual creation of a space one imagines might exist. This “imaginal space” (Byrne, 1974, pp. 57-59), “conceptual space” (English and English, 1974), “representational space” (Piaget and Inhelder, 1967; Sauvy and Sauvy, 1974, p. 21), or ”represented space” (Huttenlocher et al., 1991, p. 355) refers to the conceptual memory representation or mental image of a space (as opposed to the immediate direct perception of space). The spatial image may accurately depict real physical space but will also typically be biased by one’s own personal perceptual experiences and subjective attitudes (eg. a bias toward spatial prototypes; see IVA.50).

IIB.52 Personal Space.

The concept of “personal space” often refers to subjective feelings of territoriality or ownership of space. Sommer (1969) states that “personal space refers to an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person’s body into which intruders may not come” (p. 26). Sometimes this is also referred to as a “portable territory” (p. 27) or a “body territory” (pp. 43-44).

Similarly, Hall (1966) discusses “personal distance” which “might be thought of as a small protective sphere or bubble that an organism maintains between itself and others” (p. 12). The far reach of personal distance extends to the furthermost reach of the limbs and so is the same size as the kinesphere. Other sizes of spacings between people include “intimate distance”, “social distance”, and “public distance” (pp. 110-120). In all cases perceptual-motor attributes are used to define the size and boundaries of the space but the focus is on the personal and social significance of human interaction at each distance. In this sociological context Hall states that a person’s space does not refer to “the actual amount of air displaced by the body”, but that the personal “space envelopes” consist of “a series of invisible bubbles” which are the “extensions of his personality” (p. 121) (as opposed to extensions of the limbs). Rather than being based on anatomy the personal space is based on social norms and these vary from culture to culture.

Grüsser (1983, p. 327) follows a more philosophical view derived from Kant that the “personal space” contains the “space of the self” or the “ego space”, and which “remains within the limits of body space in an awake and attentive subject, but it is, within these limits, vague and ill defined”.

In studies of choreutics the personal space is sometimes discussed as being virtually synonymous with “kinesphere” (see above) (Laban, 1966, p. 10; Moore and Yamamoto, 1988, p. 193; Salter, 1977, p. 129). Certain social and emotional affects have also been ascribed to the kinesphere such as “the space surrounding each person which belongs to him” (Preston-Dunlop, 1984, p. viii), “the space I sense as mine” which can expand or shrink depending on one’s mood (Hackney, 1990), the space which is “psychologically their personal ‘property’” (Hutchinson-Guest, 1983, p. 310), or as the “psychological kinesphere” which relates to “how far one projects one’s effort life into space” (Schick, 1990).

There is an undeniable intrinsic relationship between the emotional/social significance of space and the perceptual-motor actions within space, however these can also be distinguished:

[The kinesphere] is related to the concept of ‘personal space’ referred to in interpersonal communication studies, and to ‘body image boundary’ referred to in body image studies, and to ‘territory’ referred to in sociological studies of communication. [But] The kinesphere differs from [these] other conceptions of the space surrounding the body by the fact that any organisation of that space is undertaken with reference to the movements that the body makes within it. (Preston-Dunlop, 1981, p. 27 ; similar statement in 1978, p. 13 [emphasis mine])

Occasionally “personal space” (Ruff, 1985, p. 901) or “intrapersonal space” (Roland, 1979, p. 79) are used synonymously to refer to an egocentric system of reference whereby movements of a body-part are identified according to their relationship with other body parts (see IIIA.10).

IIB.53 Extrapersonal Space.

The term “extrapersonal space” is sometimes used to refer to anything outside of the personal space. Since the concept of personal space is defined in terms of social and emotional territories, then the extrapersonal space will be outside of the personal territories.

In a more restricted sense, the extrapersonal space refers to any space which is outside of the physical mass of the body (Grüsser, 1983; Jeannerod, 1983, p. 1) and in this sense it includes the kinesphere or workspace.

Extrapersonal space is also sometimes used to refer to an exocentric system of reference according to which locations of body-parts or other objects are identified according to their relationship to locations in the environment (Roland, 1979; Ruff, 1985, p. 901) (see IIIA.10). These might be more properly referred to as “personal and extrapersonal frames of reference” (Ruff et al., 1981, p. 435).

The term “kinesthetic space” is adopted in this study since it follows the analogous concepts of visual space, audio space, and tactile space used in cognitive studies. “Kinesthetic space” was defined as spatial information which is perceived and/or recalled through the kinesthetic perceptual-motor system. A multitude of types of environmental, bodily, and conceptual “spaces” were considered and the concepts of the workspace, motor space, action space, movement space, and reach space are relatively synonymous with kinesthetic space and with Laban’s (1966) concept of the “kinesphere”; referring to the space within immediate reach of body movements.

Since the sensory perceptions of space and the motor actions in space go hand-in-hand the conceptions of visual-motor space or audio-motor space are more accurate than simply visual space or audio space. The notion of a “kinesthetic-motor space” is cumbersome and “kinemotor” (ie. movement-motor) seems redundant. The terminology is inadequate. Even the term “kinesthetic” is inadequate since it specifies movement (kine ) though it is generally agreed that perceptions of body positions and force will also be included under its heading (see IIA). Nonetheless, “kinesthetic space” and the “kinesphere” will be used in this study since they appear to be the best available terms in current usage. The “motor” will always be implied as part of kinesthetic space whenever the movements are voluntarily produced (and thus generating efferent data; see IIA.28).