


































Untitled-1


Feldenkrais Research Journal • volume 1 (2004)

Article

The Feldenkrais Method:
A Dynamic Approach to Changing Motor Behavior

Patricia Buchanan
Indiana University

Beverly Ulrich
PhD; University of Michigan

Abstract
This tutorial describes the Feldenkrais Method and points to parallels with a dynamic systems theory
(DST) approach to motor behavior. Feldenkrais is an educational system designed to use movement and
perception to foster individualized improvement in function. Moshe Feldenkrais, its originator, believed his
method enhanced people’s ability to discover flexible and adaptable behavior and that behaviors are
self-organized. Similarly, DST explains that a human-environment system is continually adapting to
changing conditions and assembling behaviors accordingly. Despite little research, Feldenkrais is being
used with people of widely ranging ages and abilities in varied settings. We propose that DST provides an
integrated foundation for research on the Feldenkrais Method, suggest research questions, and
encourage researchers to test the fundamental tenets of Feldenkrais.

Keywords
dynamic systems theory, intervention, movement, perception-action

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

First published: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 72, No. 4, p315-323 (2001).

Please cite: Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 1; 2004.

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


RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001 315315315315315

Buchanan and Ulrich

Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
©2001 by the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 315–323

Key words: dynamic systems theory, intervention, movement,
perception-action

The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to provide a
tutorial on the Feldenkrais Method;1 and second, to pro-

pose dynamic systems theory as a theoretical basis for test-
ing its efficacy. The Feldenkrais Method was designed as an
approach to changing and improving motor behavior over
time—or simply, motor development—whether within a
single session or over years of training. We believe this
method is based on plausible tenets, made more intrigu-
ing by the many similarities to the principles of a popular
contemporary theory—dynamic systems theory. Interest-
ingly, the Feldenkrais Method has been in practice since the
1940s, long before many theorists began to recognize and
study the connections between dynamic systems theory
and human motor behavior.

Little experimental research has been published that
examines the effects of Feldenkrais on performance. Re-
gardless, its use with individuals and groups is increasing
in a variety of settings including private practices, health

clubs, schools and universities, and hospitals and clinics
(FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of North America, 1996). Prac-
titioners might work with an infant learning to stand up
from the floor; an older adult trying to get down to the floor
without falling; athletic teams, dance companies, or or-
chestras seeking to refine performance; or workers want-
ing to avoid repetitive motion complaints.

By describing the Feldenkrais Method and relating it to
dynamic systems theory, we hope to motivate researchers
to rigorously examine this approach to changing motor
behavior. We begin with an overview of the Feldenkrais
Method, then draw parallels and distinctions between
Feldenkrais and dynamic systems theory. After reviewing
existing research, we present suggestions for future study.

Fundamentals of the Fundamentals of the Fundamentals of the Fundamentals of the Fundamentals of the Feldenkrais MethodFeldenkrais MethodFeldenkrais MethodFeldenkrais MethodFeldenkrais Method

The Feldenkrais Method of somatic education is de-
signed to improve function in activities of daily living,
work, and recreation. Its proponents believe more effec-
tive and efficient actions can emerge from guided explo-
ration of movement that promotes improved attention and
awareness and refines the ability to detect information and
make perceptual discriminations. Regular use of such
attentive explorations and integration of the skills devel-
oped during these lessons into activities of daily living lead

The Feldenkrais Method£££££: A Dynamic Approach
to Changing Motor Behavior

Patricia A. Buchanan and Beverly D. Ulrich

Submitted: June 21, 1999
Accepted: March 19, 2001

Patricia A. Buchanan is with the Department of Kinesiology at
Indiana University. Beverly D. Ulrich is with the Division of
Kinesiology at the University of Michigan.

This tutorial describes the Feldenkrais Method and points to parallels with a dynamic systems theory (DST) approach to motor
behavior. Feldenkrais is an educational system designed to use movement and perception to foster individualized improvement in
function. Moshe Feldenkrais, its originator, believed his method enhanced people’s ability to discover flexible and adaptable behavior
and that behaviors are self-organized. Similarly, DST explains that a human-environment system is continually adapting to chang-
ing conditions and assembling behaviors accordingly. Despite little research, Feldenkrais is being used with people of widely ranging
ages and abilities in varied settings. We propose that DST provides an integrated foundation for research on the Feldenkrais
Method, suggest research questions, and encourage researchers to test the fundamental tenets of Feldenkrais.

Growth and Motor Development

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM315



316316316316316 RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001

Buchanan and Ulrich

to further refinements and more seemingly automatic use
of these motor abilities. Practitioners believe Feldenkrais is
“an educational system that develops a functional aware-
ness of the self in the environment” FELDENKRAIS
GUILD® of North America,  1997, p. 3). Importantly, the
overarching goal is to help people become self-directed
learners who can apply the perceptual-motor skills and
exploratory strategies teachers believe to be fostered by
Feldenkrais lessons to a variety of learning situations. Because
of the focus on learning, Guild Certified Feldenkrais Teachers ®

and Practitionerscm often identify the people they work with
as students, not clients or patients. Feldenkrais teachers
have applied this method to people of all ages and all
abilities, with the goal of helping them learn how to im-
prove their lives.

There are two complementary styles of teaching in the
Feldenkrais Method—Awareness Through Movement® (ATM) and
Functional Integration®(FI). Through the specific use of
sensorimotor experiences, both approaches purport to
enhance people’s awareness of their habitual solutions to
motor problems and the sensations accompanying those
habits, demonstrate other solutions, and help students
select easier, more efficient, and more effective movement
options. Practitioners who use this method believe that the
impact of a single lesson may be relatively minor in the
moment, but they expect more noticeable effects to accu-
mulate over a series of lessons. Sometimes rapid and dra-
matic changes in behavior are reported to occur within a
session (e.g., see the Feldenkrais Journal; Rosenfeld, 1981).

ATM lessons are designed to enable Feldenkrais teach-
ers to work with more than one student at a time, while
allowing for individualized responses to common sets of
instruction. ATMs are verbally guided movement explo-
rations in which teachers focus the students’ attention on
the sensory information that accompany a series of move-
ments and minimize focus on the larger movement out-
come of the lesson. Students often come to Feldenkrais
teachers with a specific movement problem in mind (e.g.,
to reduce back pain, to improve tennis serve). But during
lessons, teachers primarily direct students’ awareness to
the exploratory process. In turn, teachers observe students’
responses to the instructions and attempt to adjust direc-
tions and ask guiding questions to match the demon-
strated needs of the students.

The Feldenkrais teacher may select ATM lessons with a
broad goal in mind of improving the students’ abilities to
perceive sensory information and change their behavior
accordingly or for a more specific sensorimotor function,
such as lying down on and standing up from the floor, or
improving the movement skills used in alpine skiing
(Feldenkrais, 1972, 1981; FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of
North America, 1997). A sketch of an ATM in which the
goal is to enable students to transition efficiently from
supine to sitting is presented in the Appendix.

During an FI lesson, Feldenkrais teachers also use touch
to direct attention, guide a student’s movement, and

gather additional information about how a student is act-
ing. Thus, FI lessons are believed to afford the exchange
of more specific and richer information between the
teacher and student. As with ATM lessons, teachers orga-
nize FI lessons with students’ functional goals in mind,
without prescribing the solutions (Feldenkrais, 1981;
Hanna, 1980/1993).

FI and ATM are two approaches to teaching similar
lessons. A teacher could give one or more FI lessons on
the movement theme of an ATM about rolling to sit (see
Appendix). Part of an FI lesson might focus on investigat-
ing a component of this function. For example, the stu-
dent, while lying supine, might be able to do an
undifferentiated log roll but have difficulty rolling using
differentiated movements. Being able to bend the legs
then sequentially roll affords the possibility of moving ef-
ficiently from supine to sitting in a continuous motion. A
student might find this challenging because of difficulty
tilting the knees to the right and rolling the pelvis to that
side. Given the complexity of human structure-function,
many reasons could exist for this difficulty. The Feldenkrais
teacher would attempt to discover how the student cur-
rently does the movement, bring this into clearer focus for
both the teacher and the student, and then consider other
possibilities. Within this method, a detailed awareness of
how a person currently organizes a solution to a movement
problem is considered to be foundational to and seamless
with improvement. Feldenkrais (1981) stated, “if we do
not know what we are actually enacting then we cannot
possibly do what we want” (p. xi).

As a step in this process, teachers often direct stu-
dents’ attention to their habitual or preferred movement
patterns before exploring other options. Continuing our
example, having noticed that tilting the knees to the left
is easier (e.g., more range of motion) than tilting to the
right, the teacher considers that the source of this limita-
tion might be proximal or distal, with singular or multiple
contributing factors. For example, more detailed assess-
ment of hip movements may reveal easy and full motion of
the hips but limited mobility in the ribs. Or, closer atten-
tion to the right leg might show that internal rotation-ad-
duction is easier than external rotation-abduction, and that
external rotation-abduction of the left hip is greater than
that of the right hip. One possible factor contributing to
this pattern is persistent activation of the right adductors
that restricts right hip abduction. The teacher has several
options for helping the student perceive this. One ap-
proach is the use of contract-relax to exaggerate the feel-
ing of muscle activation versus relaxation for the student.
Another tactic is to support the leg in a position of 90° of
hip flexion and 90° of knee flexion while gently guiding
the student’s hip joint through a small path of circumduc-
tion in clockwise and counterclockwise directions. After a
few of these or other techniques, the teacher would return
to the earlier movement of tilting the right knee to allow
both teacher and student to notice any changes. Specifi-

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM316



RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001 317317317317317

Buchanan and Ulrich

cally for FI, the intent is that assessment and instruction
(evaluation and treatment in a medical model) occur si-
multaneously and continually.

Given this introduction to ATM and FI, we next relate
basic concepts on which the Feldenkrais Method was created
and anecdotal accounts of its effects with principles of
dynamic systems theory. While dynamic systems theory has
only been applied to motor behavior for about 20 years, it
has already offered numerous insights to this field
(Thelen and Smith, 1994, 1998; Ulrich 1997; Wallace,
1996). In turn, dynamic systems theory may assist the sci-
entific evaluation of the Feldenkrais Method.

Dynamic Systems Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory and FeldenkraisFeldenkraisFeldenkraisFeldenkraisFeldenkrais
LinkagesLinkagesLinkagesLinkagesLinkages

We believe there is strong correspondence between
the Feldenkrais Method and dynamic systems theory on five
major points. Additionally, we pose three possible distinc-
tions. We begin with the parallels.

First, self-organization is a foundational principle of
dynamic systems theory and Feldenkrais. Dynamic systems
theorists believe that humans are self-organizing systems;
behavior emerges from the interaction of multiple sub-
systems, including experience. Behaviors are assembled
in the moment and context of the current movement task.
While it is efficient to develop stable behaviors for recur-
ring task categories, these behaviors need not be encoded
in detail in the system. Flexibility and adaptability can
coexist with stability when solutions to movement problems
are softly assembled and remain plastic. Reorganization
of behavioral patterns may occur gradually or rapidly, linearly
or nonlinearly (Edelman, 1993; Haken, 1983; Sporns &
Edelman, 1993; Thelen & Smith, 1994, 1998; Ulrich, 1997).

During Feldenkrais lessons, students are not told rules
for how to do a movement but are guided to explore action
possibilities and attend to the accompanying sensations. The
presumption is that they will self-organize behaviors
emerging from individual constellations of intrinsic fac-
tors in relation to the extrinsic factors posed during lessons.
(Feldenkrais, 1972, 1975/1980, 1981, 1977/1993).

Nested within the principle of self-organization is the
concept that behavior is dynamic and, therefore, plastic.
In a classic statement, Feldenkrais (1949/1996) said, that
with very few exceptions “behaviour is acquired and has
nothing permanent about it but our belief that it is so” (p.
6). For example, Feldenkrais thought that cortical map-
pings along with movement patterns would reorganize in
response to activity. He speculated, “the area for the third
finger would be larger in a person who has learned to play
a musical instrument than in one who has not” (1972, p.
14). Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rockstroh, & Taub (1995)
observed this proposed effect for the left hands of string
players. They used magnetic source imaging to demon-

strate increased strength of response to and shifts in cor-
tical response to tactile stimulation of the digits of the left
hands in musicians versus controls. In addition, the
amount of shift in cortical representation correlated
strongly with experience.

A second similarity exists in describing behavior that
assembles into preferred patterns or coordination modes.
In dynamic systems terms, such behavioral states are called
attractors. The stability of attractors is variable, depending
on intrinsic factors such as experience or practice with the
task, extrinsic factors such as environmental conditions,
and the dynamics of the task itself (Thelen & Smith, 1994;
Ulrich, 1997; Wallace, 1996; Zanone & Kelso, 1994).

A stable behavior, such as a habit, can be useful, as in
a well practiced skill, or problematic, as in sitting or stand-
ing postures that lead to musculoskeletal dysfunctions and
pain. Feldenkrais (1949/1996) offered a vivid description
of problematic habitual behavior that “can be likened to a
groove into which the person sinks never to leave unless
some special force makes him do so. With time, the groove
deepens, and stronger forces are necessary to remove him
from it” (p. 118).

This leads to a third commonality: both dynamic sys-
tems theory and Feldenkrais view perturbation as instrumen-
tal for changing habitual behavior. From a dynamic systems
perspective, the transition between two stable patterns is
marked by a period of instability characterized by large fluc-
tuations in behavior in which the organism explores the
functional space. This period of instability arises from
perturbations, such as critical change in a contributing
subsystem or input from a new source. Changing habitual
behavior, good or bad, requires perturbing the actual pro-
duction of the pattern to allow organization of alternate
patterns that might be similar or quite different. Less stable
behaviors are more easily nudged from their shallow
attractor spaces into alternative behavior states than are
more stable ones. (Thelen & Smith, 1994, 1998; Zanone
& Kelso, 1997).

One may consider the elements of Feldenkrais lessons
as “special forces” that disturb habitual behaviors. With
verbal instructions or manual guidance, teachers attempt
to highlight students’ usual movements, limit the use of
these standard motions, and encourage exploration of
other movement options. Teachers intend for these per-
turbations to destabilize habitual behaviors enough to al-
low students to self-organize individually appropriate
alternative solutions.

A fourth connection between dynamic systems theory
and Feldenkrais is their common belief that multiple sub-
systems affect behavior. The explanatory power of dynamic
systems theory resides in the relationships among the parts
that form the whole system (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984;
Thelen & Smith, 1994, 1998; Thelen, Schöner, Scheier, &
Smith, 2001; Ulrich, 1997). From a Bernsteinian account
of behavior, these relationships constrain the innumerable
degrees of freedom within the human to certain biome-

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM317



318318318318318 RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001

Buchanan and Ulrich

chanically efficient movements, while accommodating the
various patterns of coordination that can result in similar
behavior (Bernstein, 1967). These relationships are influ-
enced by many factors, such as the system’s history of ex-
periences, the availability of resources, and the demands
and constraints of a given task in a specific context. As the
mix of factors changes, so does the behavior of the system
(Haken, 1983; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Thelen et al.,
2001; Thelen & Smith, 1994, 1998; Thelen & Ulrich, 1991).

Thelen and Smith (1998) argued that a dynamic sys-
tems view of behavior could account for situations in which
“the same conditions lead to different behavioral out-
comes, depending on the immediate previous history of
the system” (p. 593). The unique set of experiences pos-
sessed by each person—from the events of the preceding
hour to the happenings across a lifespan—is a significant
component that impacts the particular movement patterns
individuals produce.

While many neuroscientists give primacy to the role
of the brain in organizing behavior, Feldenkrais and dynamic
systems theory agree that it is but one component among
the many cooperatively directing patterns of action.
Feldenkrais (1949/1996) articulated this concept when
he stated, “there is no function which has necessitated
apprenticeship in which the somatic, motor, emotive or
mental element can be singled out as the cause of the oth-
ers” (p. 136). The interplay of these components with
extrinsic and task-specific factors may account for the
acceptance in Feldenkrais instruction of variable student
responses to the same lesson and differing student im-
provement rates over a sequence of lessons.

Feldenkrais also emphasized the influence of life-
long histories of experiences, along with genetic inherit-
ance and cultural influences, to give a developmental
explanation for the movement variability among people
(Feldenkrais, 1972, 1985). He noted, for example, more
mobility of the hips, pelvis, and low back in people of Asian
countries compared to those raised in western countries,
which he attributed to cultural differences in sitting hab-
its (Feldenkrais, 1981). Others have documented notable
variations in how humans within cultures acquire crawl-
ing, independent walking, and reaching that are based
on differences in experience with the task and neuromus-
cular characteristics (Adolph, Vereijken, & Denny, 1998;
Bottos et al., 1989; Bottos, Puato, Vianello, & Facchin, 1995;
Thelen, Corbetta, & Spencer, 1996).

Our fifth linkage between dynamic systems theory and
Feldenkrais concerns their mutual emphasis on the con-
tinual interaction between the perception and action sub-
systems. Through perception, we detect intrinsic and
extrinsic information that lets us understand our actions
and drives the organization of contextually appropriate ac-
tions. In turn, our actions influence our perceptions. Dy-
namic systems theorists have drawn from the direct
perception or ecological perspective that originated with
Gibson (1950, 1966) to often conceptualize perception

and action as the two subsystems critical to human motor
behavior. The interactive roles of more microscopic sub-
systems can be subsumed within the larger systems of per-
ception and action. In this manner, the integrated roles
of nerves and muscles in both sensory and motor functions
become more apparent. Researchers have examined how
humans use perception to guide actions, such as catch-
ing balls or juggling or reaching, and, conversely, the use
of exploratory actions to make perceptual discriminations,
such as determining the length of unseen hand-held ob-
jects (Mark et al., 1997; Savelsbergh & Bootsma, 1994;
Turvey, Park, Dumais, & Carello, 1998). After studying the
development of reaching, Thelen and Smith (1998) stated
that the development of motor behavior “must emerge
from the continuous processes of moving and perceiving”
(p. 608). In other words, perception and action are
coupled in a tight interdependence.

Feldenkrais (1985) strongly linked perception and
action in his work, noting that the human organism’s “be-
havior and environment are a whole that cannot be subdi-
vided and acted upon separately” (p. 36). He believed that
in order to sense one must move. Musculoskeletal prop-
rioceptors responsive to movement parameters inform us
of internal states and specify our relation to our environ-
ment. For Feldenkrais (1949/1996), “re-education of the
kinaesthetic sense, and resetting it to the normal course
of self-adjusting improvement of all muscular activity—the
essence of life—is fundamental” (p. 155). It is through
movement that touch, visual, taste, and even olfactory re-
ceptors contact external stimuli. Indeed, many Feldenkrais
lessons are intended to develop the ability to orient the
teleceptors of the head while in a variety of positions and
across a range of tasks. In turn, our perceptions guide and
motivate our movements. A critical assumption in
Feldenkrais is that developing one’s ability to make finer
perceptual distinctions is dependent on movement and,
recursively, refining perception fine-tunes movement
(Feldenkrais, 1972, 1981, 1984, 1994, 1949/1996).

In the Feldenkrais Method, the teacher repeatedly directs
and guides the student’s perceptual attention, whether
through verbal suggestion or tactile cueing, as movement
occurs. At different times, Feldenkrais teachers guide stu-
dents to attend to various forms of perceptual information.
In a thorough set of lessons, students monitor kinesthetic,
haptic, and visual information, and may also focus on ves-
tibular and auditory sensations. Commonly, teachers chal-
lenge students to notice differences in pressure, patterns
of breathing, areas of the body in or out of contact with other
surfaces, positional relationships between body segments,
levels of muscle tension, and the shape and arrangement
of the skeleton. Teachers attempt to improve the ability of
students to make these perceptual discriminations by plac-
ing students in nonhabitual positions, altering their rela-
tionship to gravity, repeating similar movement patterns
in various positional contexts, experimenting with differ-
entiated and undifferentiated eye movements, doing both

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM318



RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001 319319319319319

Buchanan and Ulrich

open and closed kinetic chain versions of movements, and
many more techniques (Feldenkrais, 1972, 1979, 1984,
1994, 1949/1996).

From these five proposed similarities, we shift to three
areas of conceivable differences between dynamic systems
theory and Feldenkrais. The first concerns the importance
of goal. Dynamic systems theory focuses heavily on behav-
ior in context, with the goal driving the system organiza-
tion. In studies, the task goal is up front and transparent
to participants (e.g., Vereijken, Whiting, & Beek, 1992;
Zanone & Kelso, 1997). During a Feldenkrais lesson, em-
phasis is placed on attending to sensory information
present during exploratory movements. Teachers of this
method argue that by first improving the sensitivity of per-
ception one can learn to adapt any behavior more easily.
Thus, during instruction, the motor goal or task is second-
ary to the process of improving perceptual-motor skills for
subsequent use in self-organizing task-specific behaviors
(Feldenkrais, 1972, 1984, 1985).

A second distinction might exist regarding nonlin-
earity. Dynamic systems theory expressly predicts both non-
linear and linear change in the behavior of an open system
operating far from equilibrium (Haken, 1983; Prigogine &
Stengers, 1984; Wallace, 1996). Whether change occurs rap-
idly or gradually, this principle accounts for episodes of
nonlinear changes in coordination patterns. As subsystems
change, behavioral modes become unstable and more vari-
able. Exploring the task-relevant workspace facilitates the
organization of other options for coordinating behavior.
Not all options are equally viable for all systems; therefore,
different systems (i.e., different people) might discover dif-
ferent solutions that best fit their current states (Schmidt &
Fitzpatrick, 1996; Turvey & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Ulrich, 1997;
Zanone & Kelso, 1994, 1997). The foundational ideas of
Feldenkrais do not explicitly discuss nonlinear shifts in be-
havior. However, anecdotal accounts of sudden behavior
reorganization, such as the shift in the lifelong irregular
breathing pattern of an adult with cerebral palsy to a quiet
and slow rhythm during a single FI lesson with Feldenkrais
(Hanna, 1980/1993), suggest that nonlinear change can
emerge via Feldenkrais instruction (Feldenkrais, 1977/1993;
see issues of Feldenkrais Journal and SenseAbility). The
nonequilibrium behavior of open systems might explain the
variable rates of change and range of behaviors Feldenkrais
teachers report observing in their students.

A third possible distinction considers the treatment
of subsystems. Both dynamic systems theory and Feldenkrais
emphasize that it is the interactions among subsystems that
determine system behavior. Dynamic systems theory takes
a step further and attempts to identify which subsystem
(or subsystems), functioning as a control parameter, most
probably drives a behavioral transition. For example, shifts
in strength or body composition influence the kicking and
stepping behavior of infants; changes in postural control
affect the transition to independent walking (Thelen &
Smith, 1994; Thelen & Ulrich, 1991; Ulrich, 1997). While

Feldenkrais teachers are focused on facilitating individually
appropriate changes in relevant subsystems, they believe
certain factors may influence behavior across individuals,
such as the role of eye movements in coordinating reach-
ing or turning (Feldenkrais, 1972, 1949/1996).

In summary, dynamic systems theorists (e.g., Thelen
& Smith, 1994, 1998; Ulrich, 1997; Zanone & Kelso, 1994)
and the basis for the Feldenkrais Method (Feldenkrais, 1972,
1981, 1985, 1949/1996) both describe human behavior
as self-organizing from individual, complex, continual
processes that relate perception, action, and experience.
Stable behaviors need to be perturbed to permit their
reorganization into related or new patterns of coordina-
tion. Distinctions between dynamic systems theory and
Feldenkrais pertaining to the role of goal or task, nonlin-
earity, and the identification of control parameters may
represent differing points of emphasis for the dynamic
systems researcher and the Feldenkrais practitioner. Over-
all, the strength of these linkages suggests that dynamic
systems theory is an appropriate basis for researching the
Feldenkrais Method. We now turn attention to research that
has assessed the Feldenkrais Method and its efficacy. We re-
view the limited experimental studies in the next section
and suggest directions for future research from a dynamic
systems perspective.

Research Past and FutureResearch Past and FutureResearch Past and FutureResearch Past and FutureResearch Past and Future

To date, the number of published, peer-reviewed stud-
ies examining the effectiveness of the Feldenkrais Method
for changing motor behavior and improving function is
low. Some considered the effects of single lessons on
healthy adults or people with relatively minor physical
complaints (Brown & Kegerreis, 1991; Chinn, Trujillo,
Kegerreis, & Worrell, 1994; Ruth & Kegerreis, 1992; Seegert
& Shapiro, 1999). Others have observed older adults
(Gutman, Herbert, & Brown, 1977), people with multiple
sclerosis (Johnson, Frederick, Kaufman, & Mountjoy, 1999;
Stephens et al., 1999), and adults with chronic pain
(Bearman & Shafarman, 1999) for changes subsequent
to a series of Feldenkrais lessons. Although all but one of
these studies (Gutman et al., 1977) reported alterations
in observed measures after intervention, these studies
have design limitations (e.g., lack of appropriate control
groups) that weaken the impact of their findings and leave
room for alternative explanations of outcomes.

One well controlled, randomized study demonstrated
significant functional changes after Feldenkrais lessons.
Lundblad, Elert, and Gerdle (1999) conducted a yearlong
study of female factory workers who had complaints of neck
and shoulder pain. Researchers randomly assigned par-
ticipants to a control group, physiotherapy group, or
Feldenkrais group. Work-based interventions lasted 16
weeks. Lundblad et al. (1999) conducted an extensive

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM319



320320320320320 RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001

Buchanan and Ulrich

battery of work performance and physiological tests before
and after the interventions. They summarized that little
or no change occurred in the physiotherapy group, the
control group often worsened, and the Feldenkrais group
improved with respect to neck and shoulder complaints
and function over the study year.

These studies offer clues to the functional impact
Feldenkrais might have on behavior. Clearly, more research
is needed to justify or disprove its effectiveness in clinics and
schools. Research questions focused on whether or not
Feldenkrais lessons can change motor behavior might not re-
quire any particular theoretical framework. But questions
concerning how the method produces change, queries
into the process of change occurring within individuals,
or efforts to differentiate Feldenkrais from other interven-
tions bring theoretical assumptions to the foreground.

We have proposed that dynamic systems theory shows
notable similarities in many of its principles to the basic
tenets of the Feldenkrais Method. This theory embraces the
complex and interactive qualities of the learning process
supposedly facilitated by the Feldenkrais Method, and so may
be an appropriate (though arguably not the only) perspec-
tive for research. Given the significant parallels and cog-
nizant of possible distinctions, we propose that dynamic
systems theory affords an appropriate framework for con-
structing research questions about the Feldenkrais Method
that extend beyond whether it can change behavior to how
performers respond. We offer several possibilities below.

Dynamic systems theory and Feldenkrais hold in com-
mon the principle that multiple subsystems interact to
produce behavior. Changing a subsystem and, thus, the
relationship among subsystems might cause a behavior to
change. Certain Feldenkrais lessons emphasize one func-
tional subsystem in an effort to facilitate reorganization
of the integrated system. For example, anecdotal reports
of teachers claim that a lesson about differentiating eye
movements (a subsystem behavior) while quietly lying
supine has led to increased range of turning while seated
(a system behavior). Typically, one would expect an in-
crease in range of motion to follow stretching exercises
or other activities that increase tissue temperature. Rest-
ing supine while doing eye movements would not be ex-
pected to induce these changes. Researchers could use
motion analysis or other range of motion detectors to es-
tablish baseline turning ranges of participants prior to the
lesson and then remeasure turning afterwards. If turning
increases following a lesson with eye movements only, the
principle that multiple subsystems interact to coordinate
behavior would be supported.

Another shared principle of dynamic systems theory
and Feldenkrais is that perturbations can cause stable be-
haviors to shift into other coordination patterns. Practitio-
ners believe the elements of Feldenkrais lessons stimulate
students to reorganize current behaviors into refined or
new modes of coordination. Researchers could follow the
individual course of learning in response to the perturba-

tions produced within a single lesson about the relation-
ship of pelvic motion to the trunk and head. Because such
ATMs involve frequent repetitions of a relatively periodic
movement, they are amenable to analysis of parameters,
such as relative phase. Researchers could first gather ki-
nematic data as a participant sits on a stool and responds
to simple instructions to shift the weight from one side of
the pelvis to the other. A phase variable could be derived
relating the motion of the pelvis with that of the head.
Three phase relations are conceivable: absolute phase
locking in which the pelvis and head move together, rela-
tive phasing with the pelvis leading the head, and variable
phasing, if the head remains fairly stationary as the pelvis
moves. Once the initial coordination pattern is known,
researchers could track this variable as the participant fol-
lows the instructions of an ATM “pelvic clock” lesson and
again at its conclusion for any changes in the coordina-
tion pattern. If performers change their initial preferred
phase relations to other patterns after the lesson, this
would support the contention that Feldenkrais lessons per-
turb existing behaviors and so facilitate the reorganization
of other coordination modes. Researchers might also be
interested in observing changes in this exemplary pattern
longitudinally over a series of related pelvic clock lessons
and including follow-up retention observations. A varia-
tion on this longitudinal study may be informative about
the transfer and generalization of Feldenkrais learning by us-
ing this test movement in a series of lessons that has no pel-
vic clock lessons at all, or perhaps in only a single lesson.

We also propose a design that could address the dif-
fering emphasis of dynamic systems theory and the
Feldenkrais Method regarding on what a performer should
focus—goal or process—while learning a new task. Several
researchers have demonstrated Bernstein’s (1967) ideas
that when adults acquire a novel skill they pass through
three phases. Initially they freeze out degrees of freedom,
stiffening up and coupling joints to act as a unit rather than
independently. Subsequently, performers increase ex-
ploratory behavior, loosening up joint couplings and
searching for more efficient patterns of movement, before
settling into the third phase, in which patterns become
stable and efficient (Newell, 1996; Vereijken, Van
Emmerik, Whiting, & Newell, 1992; Ulrich 1997). One
could argue that the approach advocated by Feldenkrais
would facilitate the process of skill acquisition particularly
well for performers who are in Phase 1 and need to ex-
plore options to detect the relevant perceptual informa-
tion needed to move on to Phases 2 and 3. A dynamic
systems theorist might argue that by focusing on the goal,
the complex human system would be drawn to explore, as
control (a subsystem) improved, thus progressing more
dynamically over time without explicit attention to the
process from tightly coupled to more variable and explor-
atory. The test would be in the rate of progress and changes
in other learning measures made by two groups of indi-
viduals, if “guided” by these competing principles.

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM320



RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001 321321321321321

Buchanan and Ulrich

One could adapt the paradigm of Vereijken and col-
leagues, who used a ski simulator (e.g., Vereijken, Van
Emmerik, et al., 1992; Vereijken, Whiting, et al., 1992) for
such a study. As Vereijken previously demonstrated, train-
ing regimes that varied performers’ target frequency or
instructed them to attend to the frequency versus the
amplitude of platform movement were no more effective,
and sometimes less effective, learning strategies than dis-
covery learning. The behaviors of performers who learn
via discovery to move the simulator platform as quickly and
as far as possible could be compared with others who re-
ceive Feldenkrais-based guidance in their discovery process.
For example, prior to getting on the simulator, participants
might first be instructed to do a variety of lateral sway tasks
that attempt to make them aware of the different sensations
and action possibilities associated with coordination patterns
that emphasize or minimize certain joint motions. Once
participants are on the ski simulator, the teacher might ask
them to notice a variety of features of their actions, such as
where their heads are relative to the apex of the simulator
or how they sense their weight shifting at their feet.

We noted another possible distinction between dy-
namic systems theory and Feldenkrais concerning control
parameters. Dynamic systems theorists often try to iden-
tify a subsystem that generally acts as a control parameter
for a given behavior, while Feldenkrais teachers remain more
interested in the interactions among subsystems and iden-
tifying individually appropriate factors for facilitating
change. For example, strength is a control parameter for
certain behaviors, and activities to increase strength are
typical components of preventative and rehabilitation pro-
grams. Some Feldenkrais practitioners have anecdotally re-
ported increases in strength in students after a series of
lessons, even though the lessons did not focus on strength
development and the students did not engage in typical
strengthening exercises. Researchers might compare
these two positions in a study that examines changes in
strength, a factor that obviously influences one’s ability to
lift a load from the floor or perform a squat lift. Groups
engaged in a weight-training course or a work hardening
program based on a traditional hypertrophy model of
strength development could be compared with partici-
pants in a series of ATM lessons only. The ATM partici-
pants conceivably would be learning to make more
efficient use of their existing strength capacities but would
not be engaged in muscle hypertrophy tasks per se. A third
group might be included that combines methods. If the
ATM group makes notable improvements in strength as
measured by the amount of weight they lifted, this would
support the Feldenkrais position that, given individual dif-
ferences, no one subsystem or control parameter can a
priori be deemed most in need of change in order to shift
the behavior of the system. Besides tracking how much
weight a person could lift, researchers might also be in-
terested in monitoring the efficiency and, thus, the safety
with which performers execute their lifts.

These questions and more regarding the Feldenkrais
Method await answers. It is our hope that the tutorial about
the method, the presentation of the connections between
dynamic systems theory and Feldenkrais, the highlights of
existing research, and suggestions for studies motivated
by dynamic systems theory will encourage more research-
ers to critically examine the efficacy of Feldenkrais.

Exploring Application and TheoryExploring Application and TheoryExploring Application and TheoryExploring Application and TheoryExploring Application and Theory

Feldenkrais Method practitioners claim to intervene in a
wide variety of situations and facilitate a person’s own pro-
cess of self-improvement through attentive, guided move-
ment explorations. Yet, well designed experimental study
of these assertions has so far been minimal. Based on the
similarities we described between the principles of dy-
namic systems theory and the concepts of Feldenkrais, we
proposed that rigorous studies of this method could be
designed from a dynamic systems perspective and sug-
gested several specific research questions. We believe that
studies of the Feldenkrais Method hold importance for pro-
fessionals in the movement sciences on three fronts. First,
these studies will refute, promote revision of, or lend sup-
port to Feldenkrais proponents’ claims. Second, this re-
search may well expand our theoretical understanding of
the processes of learning and human motor behavior de-
velopment. Third, we believe this affords an important
opportunity to bridge the gap between theory and prac-
tice. Whether or not the principles of dynamic systems
theory and the Feldenkrais Method are the match we suggest
they are, the process of discovery seems likely to be an in-
formative exploration.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Adolph, K. E., Vereijken, B., & Denny, M. A. (1998). Learning to
crawl. Child Development, 69, 1299–1312.

Bearman, D., & Shafarman, S. (1999). The Feldenkrais method in
the treatment of chronic pain: A study of efficacy and cost
effectiveness. American Journal of Pain Management, 9, 22–27.

Bernstein, N. (1967). The Co-ordination and regulation of movements.
Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Bottos, M., Dalla Barba, B., Stefani, D., Pettenà, G., Tonin, C.,
& D’Este, A. (1989). Locomotor strategies preceding inde-
pendent walking: Prospective study of neurological and
language development in 424 cases. Developmental Medicine
and Child Neurology, 31, 25–34.

Bottos, M., Puata, M. L., Vianello, A., & Facchin, P. (1995). Lo-
comotor patterns in cerebral palsy syndromes. Developmen-
tal Medicine and Child Neurology, 37, 883–899.

Brown, E., & Kegerreis, S. (1991). Electromyographic activity
of trunk musculature during a Feldenkrais awareness
through movement lesson. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 1,
216–221.

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM321



322322322322322 RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001

Buchanan and Ulrich

Chinn, J., Trujillo, D., Kegerreis, S., & Worrell, T. (1994). Effect
of a Feldenkrais intervention on symptomatic subjects per-
forming a functional reach. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 4,
131–136.

Edelman, G. M. (1993). Neural Darwinism: Selection and reen-
trant signaling in higher brain function. Neuron, 10, 115–125.

Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E.
(1995). Increased cortical representation of the fingers of
the left hand in string players. Science, 270, 305–307.

Feldenkrais, M. (1972). Awareness through movement: Health exer-
cises for personal growth. New York: Harper and Row.

Feldenkrais, M. (1979). Man and the world. In T. Hanna (Ed.),
Explorers of humankind, (pp. 19–29). San Francisco: Harper
and Row.

Feldenkrais, M. (1980). Learn to learn. [Pamphlet]. Portland, OR:
FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of North America. (Original work
published 1975)

Feldenkrais, M. (1981). The elusive obvious. Cupertino, CA: Meta
Publications.

Feldenkrais, M. (1984). The master moves. Cupertino, CA: Meta
Publications.

Feldenkrais, M. (1985). The potent self: A guide to spontaneity. San
Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Feldenkrais, M. (1993). Body awareness as healing therapy: The case
of Nora. Berkeley, CA: Frog, Ltd and Somatic Resources.
(Original work published 1977)

Feldenkrais, M. (1994). Awareness through movement® lessons from
Alexander Yanai, Vol. 1, part A (E. Soloway, Ed., A. Baniel,
Trans.). Paris: International Feldenkrais Federation.

Feldenkrais, M. (1996). Body and mature behavior: A study of anxi-
ety, sex, gravitation and learning. Madison, CT: International
Universities Press. (Original work published 1949)

FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of North America (1996). The
Feldenkrais Method®: An overview [Videotape]. (Available from
FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of North America, 3611 SW Hood
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97201)

FELDENKRAIS GUILD® of North America. (1997, February).
SenseAbility, 2, 1–4. [On-line]. Available: www.
feldenkrais.com/senseability/index.html

Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gutman, G. M., Herbert, C. P., & Brown, S. R. (1977). Feldenkrais
versus conventional exercises for the elderly. Journal of Ger-
ontology, 32, 562–572.

Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Hanna, T. (1993) The body of life: Creating new pathways for sensory
awareness and fluid movement. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts
Press. (Original work published in 1980)

Johnson, S. K., Frederick, J., Kaufman, M., & Mountjoy, B. (1999).
A controlled investigation of bodywork in multiple sclero-
sis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 5, 237–
243.

Lundblad, I., Elert, J., Gerdle, B. (1999). Randomized controlled
trial of physiotherapy and Feldenkrais interventions in fe-
male workers with neck-shoulder complaints. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 9, 179–194.

Mark, L. S., Nemeth, K., Gardner, D., Dainoff, M. J., Paasche, J.,
Duffy, M., & Grandt, K. (1997). Postural dynamics and the

preferred critical boundary for visually guided reaching.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 23, 1365–1379.

Newell, K. M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning,
retention, and transfer. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.),
Dexterity and its development (pp. 393–429). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new
dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Rosenfeld, A. (1981). Teaching the body how to program the
brain is Moshe Feldenkrais’ miracle—A technique that
stimulates mind and muscle. Smithsonian, 11, 52–59.

Ruth, S., & Kegerreis, S. (1992). Facilitating cervical flexion us-
ing a Feldenkrais method: Awareness through movement.
Journal of Orthopaedics and Sports Physical Therapy, 16, 25–29.

Savelsbergh, G. J. P., & Bootsma, R. J. (1994). Perception-action
coupling in hitting and catching. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 25, 331–343.

Schmidt, R. C., & Fitzpatrick, P. (1996). Dynamical perspective on
motor learning. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor
learning and control (pp. 195–223). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Seegert, E. M., & Shapiro, R. (1999). Effects of alternative exer-
cise on posture. Clinical Kinesiology, 53, 41–47.

Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1993). Solving Bernstein’s prob-
lem: A proposal for the development of coordinated move-
ment by selection. Child Development, 64, 960–981.

Stephens, J., Call, S., Evans, K., Glass, M., Gould, C., & Lowe, J.
(1999). Responses to ten Feldenkrais awareness through
movement lessons by four women with multiple sclerosis: Im-
proved quality of life. Physical Therapy Case Reports, 2, 58–69.

Thelen, E., Corbetta, D., & Spencer, J. P. (1996). Development
of reaching during the first year: Role of movement speed.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 22, 1059–1076.

Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The
dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant per-
severative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–86.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the
development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1998). Dynamic systems theories. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Hand-
book of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human de-
velopment (5th ed., pp. 563–634). New York: Wiley.

Thelen, E., & Ulrich, B. D. (1991). Hidden skills: A dynamic sys-
tems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56
(1, Serial No. 223).

Turvey, M. T., & Fitzpatrick, P. (1993). Commentary: Develop-
ment of perception-action systems and general principles
of pattern formation. Child Development, 64, 1175–1190.

Turvey, M. T., Park, H., Dumais, S. M., & Carello, C. (1998).
Nonvisible perception of segments of a hand-held object
and the attitude spinor. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 3–19.

Ulrich, B. D. (1997). Dynamic systems theory and skill develop-
ment in infants and children. In K. J. Connolly & H.
Forssberg (Eds.), Neurophysiology and neuropsychology of mo-
tor development (pp. 319–345). London: Mac Keith Press.

Vereijken, B., van Emmerik, R. E. A., Whiting, H. T. A., & Newell,
K. M. (1992). Free(z)ing degrees of freedom in skill acqui-
sition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 133–142.

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM322



RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001RQES: December 2001 323323323323323

Buchanan and Ulrich

Vereijken, B., Whiting, H. T. A., & Beek, W. J. (1992). A dynami-
cal systems approach to skill acquisition. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 323–344.

Wallace, S. A. (1996). Dynamic pattern perspective of rhyth-
mic movement: An introduction. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.),
Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 155–194).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Zanone, P. G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1994). The coordination dy-
namics of learning: Theoretical structure and experimen-

tal agenda. In S. P. Swinnen, H. Heuer, J. Massion, & P.
Casear (Eds.), Interlimb coordination: Neural, dynamical, and
cognitive constraints (pp. 461–489). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Zanone, P. G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1997). Coordination dynamics
of learning and transfer: Collective and component levels.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 23, 1454–1480.

Appendix A. Appendix A. Appendix A. Appendix A. Appendix A. Example ATM Sketch: Rolling to Sit by Sweeping the Arms

Before beginning this or any ATM lesson, a teacher will typically speak to students about focusing their attention on the process of
proceeding through the lesson, attending to sensory information, and minimizing their concerns about achieving a particular outcome.
The teacher may or may not tell the students what the name or task of the lesson is before they do the ATM.

1. Lie on your back with your legs spread a comfortable distance apart. Bend your knees and bring your feet to stand. Rest your arms
on the floor above your head.

2. Tilt your knees to the left, and then sweep your arms along the floor toward the left. Let yourself curl so that your nose and face come
toward your left knee. Return to your starting position, and repeat this movement several times. Is there enough space between your
legs so that your right knee could tilt to rest on the floor?

3. Rest in the middle with your arms by your sides and your legs long. Do you notice any changes in your contact with the floor or in
your breathing?

4. Bend up your knees and bring your arms overhead. Now, begin the movement by sweeping your arms, then let the tilting of the
knees follow as you move your nose closer to your left knee. Reverse the movement, pause, and repeat several times. How is this
different from leading with your knees?

5. Pause in the middle, then return to initiating the movement with the tilting of your knees then sweeping your arms to the left as you
curl your face toward your left knee. Is there a place you can find for your left arm so that your elbow can bend and you can take
some weight on your left arm?

6. Rest in the middle. As you rest, remember the sequence of movements you just did. Imagine doing that same sequence to the right.
7. Now actually do that series of movements to the right. How is it to do the movements to the right compared to your left?
8. Rest a moment. Notice the position and sensation of your legs.
9. Resume the movement to one side, and, as you return to the middle, let the movement continue to the other side. So, you find

yourself sweeping your arms, rolling to one side, coming onto your elbow and up to side sit; reversing that; and sweeping, rolling
and coming up to sit on the other side.

10. Rest and scan yourself for any differences from when you first laid down on the floor. Then use what you have just learned to come
up to sit, then stand. Notice if your standing is different, then walk around and observe how walking feels.

NoteNoteNoteNoteNote

1. Feldenkrais®, Feldenkrais Method®, Functional Integration®, and Awareness Through Movement® are registered service marks;
and Guild Certified Feldenkrais Practitionercm and Guild Certified Feldenkrais Teacher® are certification marks of the
FELDENKRAIS GUILD®.

Authors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ Notes

The first author is a Guild Certified Feldenkrais Teacher. Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the
National Institutes of Health (T32 HD 07475). We thank anonymous reviewers and Esther Thelen for their helpful
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Please address all correspondence concerning this article to Patricia
A. Buchanan, Indiana University, School of HPER, Department of Kinesiology, HPER 112, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.

E-mail: pabuchan@indiana.edu

Untitled-1 4/15/2004, 12:37 PM323


