


































Microsoft Word - 2-Browne_pdf.doc


Feldenkrais Research Journal • volume 3 (2007)

Article

The Future of Research in the Feldenkrais Method

Gordon Browne
PT, GCFP, Balance Point Physical Therapy

Abstract
This article reflects on the nature of research into the Feldenkrais Method, from the perspective of a
Physical Therapist. The FM has enormous potential for helping people with movement difficulties ranging
from musculoskeletal pain to neurological disability to geriatric deterioration; all of which are also of
concern to the medical profession. I would like to see much of FM technique and philosophy adopted by
medical professionals, even though with the adoption will come some adaptation. I suppose the nature of
future FM research depends on what we want the future of the FM itself to look like. Do we stay pure and
focused, separate and distinct from folks with whom we have common cause? Or do we want the FM to
have a prominent place in the everyday practice of medicine and fitness?

Keywords
Feldenkrais Method, research outcomes, teaching, research design, movement benefits

Copyright ©: The copyright for this paper remains with the author(s).

Please cite: (First published in the) Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 3; 2007.

Service marks: The terms Feldenkrais®, Feldenkrais Method®, Awareness Through Movement®, ATM®,
Functional Integration®, and FI® are service marked terms of the International Feldenkrais® Federation
(IFF) and Feldenkrais professional guilds and associations in many countries. In keeping with academic
conventions, they will not be service marked in the entire text as may be required in nonacademic use,
but only for the first and most prominent use of the terms. In recognition that these phrases are formal
terms referring to specific practices within the Method, and to the Method as a whole, capitalization of all
the words in each term has been retained.

Published by the International Feldenkrais® Federation (IFF) https://feldenkrais-method.org
Available online at https://feldenkraisresearchjournal.org

https://feldenkrais-method.org/
https://feldenkraisresearchjournal.org


 1 

   

 
 
 

The Future of Research in the Feldenkrais Method 
 
Gordon Browne PT, GCFP 
Balance Point Physical Therapy 
 
I would like to thank Staffan Elgelid and the rest of the editorial staff at the IFF research 
journal for the invitation to participate in this forum on the future of Feldenkrais research. I 
must confess to feeling a bit out of my league here, as I’m no expert on research 
methodology, historical Feldenkrais research or current topics of discussion among people in 
the know.  But, since IFF is looking for eclectic, I’d be happy to put in my two cents worth! 
 

Perspective  
I would like to comment mainly from my perspective as a clinical physical therapist and will 
address primarily the Awareness Through Movement (ATM®) portion of the method.  As a 
health care professional working directly with people and with obligations to insurance 
companies, referring physicians and professional practice standards, I have dual concerns.  
One is that I provide the best quality care that I can for each individual, and the Feldenkrais 
Method (FM) has been a marvelous addition to the care I provide.  But I am also answerable 
to other interested parties that reasonably request some specifics on what I do, why I do it and 
what evidence I have to back up my methods. 
 
For those of us who would like to see FM/ATM accepted by and integrated into the health 
care system, having some research to back up our methods would be nice.  Boiling it down, 
research for medical folk comes down to outcomes studies.  Come up with some proof that 
what we do facilitates positive outcomes throughout a wide range of presenting problems 
(reduced pain, improved transitions, steadier gait, better balance, fewer falls, increased range 
of motion or strength, faster run, higher jump, finer manual control, etc.) and we can gain 
more widespread acceptance by health care professionals.  The first five research items at the 
end of this article list some examples of outcomes based research using FM/ATM in treatment 
of chronic pain, neck/shoulder pain, elderly wellness, fibromyalgia and non-specific 
musculoskeletal pain. 
 
This is good stuff, and I’d like to see more of these.  However, if you look through the next 
eleven items of that list you will see just a few examples in an avalanche of outcomes research 
singing the praises of yoga and Tai Chi in the treatment of everything from asthma to zits.  
Though we are massively outspent and outnumbered by the yoga and Tai Chi folks, we could 
probably eventually amass enough of these kinds of outcomes studies to get, like yoga and 
Tai Chi have, the benign acceptance of health care providers.  But I don’t think that this is 
enough.  What we should be striving for is the integration of FM/ATM concepts, techniques 
and individual movement sequences into standard health care practice.  To do that, health care 
practitioners need to comprehend and be able to use these concepts and specific movement 
sequences in their own practice. 
 

IFF Academy 
Feldenkrais Research Journal 3 (2007) 

® 2007 by the author 
ISSN 1817-4000 



 2 

The Black Box 
One observation a health care professional might make about all of these studies is the “black 
box” factor.  Identify potential uses for your favorite intervention, feed some folks through the 
magical movement mill and out they pop at the other end with a positive change.  But what 
happened when they were in that black box?  What movements were done and why?  What 
are the characteristics of those particular movements that are different from the exercise I’m 
prescribing now and are the outcomes from those movements demonstrably better?  What did 
I learn in that study that I can take into my own practice and use with my patients?  What can 
I do to help these people other than sending them elsewhere; and to people whose philosophy 
and methodology I don’t understand? 
 
Most health professionals won’t be taking a lengthy FM training or spending years learning 
the deep mysteries of yoga or Tai Chi. They might have warm and fuzzy feelings for all three 
of these integrated movement systems based on outcomes research, but most won’t know 
enough about them to feel confident referring out to them or teaching them to their patients in 
lieu of simpler, more logical, seemingly more scientific and more traditional therapeutic 
exercise. For FM/ATM to infiltrate and subvert current medical orthodoxy, we need to 
explain to these folks exactly what we are doing, why we are doing it, how research supports 
it and how they can learn to do it themselves in two days or less. We should do research that 
encourages people without a FM training to use modifications of our work! 
 

Random or Discriminating? 
I have always been a bit queasy about the very nature of a randomized study.  In a randomized 
study, you take a group of people and, accounting for factors like age and gender, divide them 
randomly into two or more groups.  For example, take one hundred people with back pain and 
give half of them spinal extension and half of them spinal flexion movements; who has the 
best outcomes?  The flaw is in the assumption that everyone has back pain of the same origin 
and that one treatment should, by golly, fit all.  
 
What if instead of randomly, group members were chosen for their individual needs?  If Joe’s 
back hurts to extend, put him in the flexion group.  If Suzie’s back hurts to flex, shuffle her 
over to the extension crowd.  Why not conduct a careful assessment, be discriminating and 
take into account individual needs?  As basic as this idea of providing specific solutions to 
each individual’s particular movement needs might seem to FM practitioners and to most 
health care practitioners, this idea doesn’t seem to have been reflected in the research until 
recently.  Check out the last three items on the research list for studies that support 
customized treatment and the use of tailored movement education approaches for each person.  
We should jump on this bandwagon. 
 
Perhaps we should be focusing our research money, time and energy into investigating 
Feldenkraisian concepts; like the concept of individualized movement solutions to individual 
movement problems instead of standardized movement solutions for each medical diagnosis; 
or the importance of intension and kinesthetic attention; or reciprocating movements; or 
relationships of parts to the whole.  Perhaps we should put aside our principle of having no 
principles and make up some provisional principles so that we can better interact on common 
ground and in common language with the medical community.  Perhaps we should think of 
articulating and investigating both what we teach and how we teach it.  



 3 

What We Teach 
These are obviously some partial lists and I’m confident that brighter minds than mine can 
help round out the field.  I appreciate the diversity of thought and philosophy within the FM 
community and respect that there might be entirely different lists of provisional principles out 
there; I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. 
 

• Pattern specificity. We teach lessons that explore relationships among different body 
parts.  A movement or exercise that emphasizes a differentiated relationship of hip 
flexion and back extension is fundamentally different from an exercise that 
emphasizes a global relationship of hip extension and back extension, even though 
both feature back extension.  Other important differentiated relationships include hip 
external rotation and knee internal rotation; thoracic extension and cervical flexion; 
and shoulder external rotation and forearm pronation. Articulate the differences 
between global and differentiated patterns of movement or posture, explain how a 
FM/ATM intervention can address that pattern, use research to contrast a traditional 
global exercise with a FM differentiated movement and make it simple enough that 
novices would feel confident in trying it out on their patients tomorrow. 

• Even distribution of movement.  We teach lessons that illustrate the joys of well 
integrated, whole-body, evenly distributed patterns of movement.  Many common 
musculoskeletal repetitive stress injuries are created by ignoring this important 
concept.  Health care professionals understand that many neck and low back problems 
can be attributed to localized vertebral instabilities; hence the current infatuation with 
Pilates and the concept of core strengthening/core stability.  Could we describe this 
FM concept of even distribution of movement in a way that fits this instability model, 
give some possible FM/ATM solutions and back it up with some research? 

• Proportional use of synergists.  We teach lessons that encourage the bigger muscles in 
the body to do more of the work and the smaller muscles to do proportionally less.  
Compare the use of the big hip muscles vs. use of the belly muscles in controlling the 
position and stability of the pelvis in low back pain.  Contrast quadriceps/vastus 
medialis strengthening vs. hip abductor training in controlling patellar glide in knee 
pain.  Relate posterior tibialis tendonitis to underused hip rotators.  Pick a system 
(spinal, legs, arms) and find a distal repetitive stress injury, then look for a proximal 
slacker.  Make the connection, propose a FM/ATM solution, contrast with a traditional 
approach and look for evidence. 

 

How to Teach 
• Kinesthetic self-awareness.  We spend a lot of time getting people to pay attention to 

what they are doing while they are doing it.  Kinesthetic self-awareness training is a 
fundamental characteristic of the FM.  Can we prove that awareness is important in the 
acquisition or improvement of motor skills?  Does paying attention during exercise 
make a difference in balance, incidence of falls, reduction of pain or length of stride?  
There might already be some “cognitive exercise” research out there that backs this 
up, perhaps we can piggyback 

• Reciprocating movements.  We teach a lot of reciprocating movements; rolling up and 
down; looking left and right; stepping forward and back; breathing in and out.  Can we 
explain this characteristic of FM/ATM as a way of balancing antagonistic muscles and 
re-calibrating a truer middle, then back it up with evidence?  Will postural ease or 
muscle antagonist balance improve more as a result of an exercise system that features 
reciprocating movements, or does repetitive movement in just the “right” direction do 
the same thing? 



 4 

• Change of venue.  We teach the same patterns or relationships of movement in a 
number of different positions, different relationships to gravity and with varying 
functional intent.  Can we explain this characteristic as a way of helping an individual 
better perceive and improve balance or efficiency of habitual movement and postural 
patterns, then back it up?  Is there better motor control carry-over from one activity to 
another (lumbar stability in vacuuming or pull starting a lawn mower; scapular 
coordination in pushing open a door or moving from hands and knees to side sit) after 
a series of FM/ATM interventions in comparison to traditional therapeutic exercise 
and “imitate and repeat” ergonomics instructions? 

• Other FM characteristics that relate to how we teach might include: going slowly and 
gently, the use of constraints and specific language cues, introduction of deliberate 
error and judgment based on choice.  

 

Tall Order 
I realize I’m probably asking for a lot here.  Research design for any of these ideas sounds 
like a nightmare and I’m glad I’m a clinician instead of a researcher!  But I think that in order 
for us to get beyond the magical movement mill label and get our foot in the door, we will 
need to back up the concepts we use, not just the technique.  Pilate’s technique and 
philosophy is making headway among both physical therapists and the general public because 
they have sold a concept: core stability.  Individual yoga postures have been morphed into 
therapeutic exercise and fitness classes in dribbles and drabs, but the overall lack of any 
coherent concept or philosophy that appeals to western minds has limited its inroads. Tai Chi 
is rooted in traditional eastern thought and so tight lipped about the whys and wherefores of 
the movements they do that it also has little chance of becoming a significant factor in 
western medicine or exercise.  Pilate’s concepts are metastasizing into and integrating with 
medical thought and popular fitness while yoga and Tai Chi are outside the system looking in.  
Where do we want the FM to be? 
 
The FM has enormous potential for helping people with movement difficulties ranging from 
musculoskeletal pain to neurological disability to geriatric deterioration; all of which are also 
of concern to the medical profession.  I would like to see much of FM technique and 
philosophy adopted by medical professionals, even though with the adoption will come some 
adaptation.  I suppose the nature of future FM research depends on what we want the future of 
the FM itself to look like.  Do we stay pure and focused, separate and distinct from folks with 
whom we have common cause?  Then let’s do black box outcome studies to gain 
respectability for our closely held technology and maintain our exclusive franchise.  Or do we 
want the FM to have a prominent place in the everyday practice of medicine and fitness?  
Then let’s show how we can modify the FM to accommodate for medical or fitness system 
realities, let’s reinforce the concept of individualized movement education for different 
pattern types and let’s do studies that articulate and research FM concepts or specific 
techniques and that helps people outside our tribe to play with our stuff. 



 5 

References 
1. Bearman D, Shafarman S. The Feldenkrais Method in the treatment of chronic pain: a 

study on efficacy and cost effectiveness. American Journal of Pain Management 1999 
Jan; 9(1):22-7. 

2. Lundblad J, Elert J, Gerdle B. Randomized controlled trial of physiotherapy and 
Feldenkrais interventions in female workers with neck-shoulder complaints. Journal of 
Occupational Rehabilitation, Sep 1999; 9(3):179-94. 

3. Stephens J, Pendergast C, Roller BA, Weiskittel RS. Learning to improve mobility 
and quality of life in a well elderly population: The benefits of Awareness Through 
Movement. Feldenkrais Research Journal #2. 2005. 

4. Gard G. Body awareness therapy for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic pain. 
Disability and Rehabilitation. 2005 Jun 17;27(12):725-8. 

5. Malmgren-Olsson EB, Branholm IB. A comparison between three physiotherapy 
approaches with regard to health-related factors in patients with non-specific 
musculoskeletal disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2002 Apr 15; 24(6):308-17. 

6. Li F, Harmer P, Fisher KJ, McAuley E. Tai Chi: improving functional balance and 
predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Medicine and Science in Sports Medicine. 
2004 Dec;36(12):2046-52. 

7. Twang WW, Hui-Chan CW. Effects of exercise on joint sense and balance in elderly 
men: Tai Chi versus golf. Medicine and Science in Sports Medicine. 2004 Apr;36(4): 
658-67. 

8. Xu D, Hong Y, Li J, Chan K. Effect of tai chi exercise on proprioception of ankle and 
knee joints in old people. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004 Feb;38(1):50-4. 

9. Wolf SL, Barnhart HX, Kutner NG, McNeely E, Coogler C, Xu T. Reducing frailty 
and falls in older persons: an investigation of tai chi and computerized balance 
training. Journal of American Gerontological Society. 2003 Dec;51(12):1794-803. 

10. Hart J, Kanner H, Gilboa-Mayo R, Haroeh-Peer O, Rozenthul-Sorokin N, Eldar R. Tai 
Chi Chuan practice in community-dwelling persons after stroke. International Journal 
of Rehabilitation Research. 2004 Dec;27(4):303-4. 

11. Bastille JV, Gill-Body KM. A yoga-based exercise program for people with chronic 
poststroke hemiparesis. Physical Therapy. 2004 Jan;84(1):33-48. 

12. Galantino ML, Bzdewka TM, Eissler-Russo JL, Holbrook ML, Moqck EP, Geigle P, 
Farrar JT. The impact of modified Hatha yoga on chronic low back pain: a pilot study. 
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2004 Mar-Apr;10(2):56-9. 

13. Oken BS, Zajdel D, Kishiyama S, Bourdette D, Carlsen J, Haas M, Hugos KC, 
Kraemer DF, Lawrence J, Mass M. Randomized controlled trial of yoga and exercise 
in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2004 Jun 8;62(11):2058-64. 

14. Williams KA, Petronis J, Smith D, Goodrich D, Wu J, Ravi N, Doyle EJ Jr., Gregory 
Juckett R, Munoz Kolar M, Gross R, Steinberg L. Effect of Inyengar yoga therapy for 
chronic low back pain. Pain. 2005 May;115(1-2):107-17. 

15. Kolasinski SL, Garfinkel M, Tsai AG, Matz W, Van Dyke A, Schumacher HR. 
Iyengar yoga for treating symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knees: a pilot study. 
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2005 Aug;11(4):689-93. 

16. DiBenedetto M, Innes KE, Taylor AG, Rodeheaver PF, Boxer JA, WR HJ, Kerrigan 
DC. Effect of gentle Iyengar yoga program on gait in the elderly: an exploratory study. 
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005 Sep;86(9):1830-7. 

17. Long A, Donelson R, Fung T. Does it matter which exercise? A randomized control 
trail of exercise for low back pain. Spine. 2004 Dec 1;29(23):2593-602. 

18. Descareaux M, Normand MC, Laurencelle L, Dugas C. Evaluation of a specific home 
exercise program for low back pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological 
Therapeutics. 2002 Oct;25(8):497-503. 



 6 

19. Wang WT, Olson SL, Campbell AH, Hanten WP, Gleeson PB. Effectiveness of 
physical therapy for patients with neck pain: an individualized approach using a 
clinical decision-making algorithm. American Journal of Physical Medicine and 
Rehabilitation. 2003 Mar;82(3):203-18. 

 
 
 
 
 
 


