by Verena Schneider, CMS24 Sound Design Master
The master thesis “Sound Response to Physicality: Artistic Expressions of Movement Sonification” was written by Aleksandra Joanna Słyż in 2022 at the Royal College of Music in Stockholm (Kungliga Musikhögskolan; Stockholm, Sweden).
Introduction
I chose Aleksandra Słyż’s master thesis because her topic immediately resonated with my own research interests. In my master project I am working with the x-IMU3 motion sensor to track surf movements and transform them into sound for a surf documentary.
During my research process, the question of how to sonify movement data became central, and Słyż’s work gave me valuable insights into which parameters can be used and how the translation from sensor to sound can be conceptually designed.
Her thesis, Sound response to physicality, focuses on the artistic and perceptual dimensions of movement sonification. Through her work Hypercycle, she explores how body motion can control and generate sound in real time, using IMU sensors and multichannel sound design. I found many of her references—such as John McCarthy and Peter Wright’s Technology as Experience—highly relevant for my own thesis.
Gestaltungshöhe – Artistic Quality and Level of Presentation
Słyż’s thesis presents a high level of artistic and conceptual quality. The final piece, Hypercycle, is a technically complex and interdisciplinary installation that connects sound, body, and space. The artistic idea of turning the body into a musical instrument is powerful, and she reflects deeply on the relation between motion, perception, and emotion.
Visually, the documentation of her work is clear and professional, though I personally wished for a more detailed sonic description. The sound material she used is mainly synthesized tones—technically functional, but artistically minimal. As a sound designer, I would have enjoyed a stronger exploration of timbre and spatial movement as expressive parameters.
Innovationsgrad – Innovation and Contribution to the Field
Using motion sensors for artistic sonification is not entirely new, yet her combination of IMU data, embodied interaction, and multichannel audio gives the project a strong contemporary relevance. What I found innovative was how she conceptualized direct and indirect interaction—how spectators experience interactivity even when they don’t control the sound themselves.
However, from a technical point of view, the work could have been more transparent. I was missing a detailed explanation of how exactly she mapped sensor data to sound parameters. This part felt underdeveloped, and I see potential for future work to document such artistic systems more precisely.
Selbstständigkeit – Independence and Original Contribution
Her thesis clearly shows independence and artistic maturity. She worked across disciplines—combining psychology, music technology, and perception studies—and reflected on her process critically. I especially appreciated that she didn’t limit herself to the technical side but also integrated a psychological and experiential perspective.
As someone also working with sensor-based sound, I can see how much self-direction and experimentation this project required. The depth of reflection makes the work feel authentic and personal.
Gliederung und Struktur – Structure and Coherence
The structure of the thesis is logical and easy to follow. Each chapter begins with a quote that opens the topic in a poetic way, which I found very effective. She starts by explaining the theoretical background, then moves toward the technical discussion of IMU sensors, and finally connects everything to her artistic practice.
Her explanations are written in clear English, and she carefully defines all important terms such as sonification, proprioception, and biofeedback. Even readers with only basic sound design knowledge can follow her reasoning.
Kommunikationsgrad – Communication and Expression
The communication of her ideas is well-balanced between academic precision and personal reflection. I like that she uses a human-centered language, often describing how the performer or spectator might feel within the interactive system.
Still, the technical documentation of the sonification process could be more concrete. She briefly shows a Max/MSP patch, but I would have loved to understand more precisely how the data flow—from IMU to sound—was built. For future readers and practitioners, such details would be extremely valuable.
Umfang – Scope and Depth
The length of the thesis (around 50 pages) feels appropriate for the topic. She covers a wide range of areas: from sensor technology and perception theory to exhibition practice and performance philosophy.
At the same time, I had the impression that she decided to keep the technical parts lighter, focusing more on conceptual reflection. For me, this makes the thesis stronger as an artistic reflection, but weaker as a sound design manual.
Orthography, Accuracy, and Formal Care
The thesis is very carefully written and proofread. References are consistent, and the terminology is accurate. She integrates both scientific and artistic citations, which gives the text a professional academic tone.
The layout is clear, and the visual elements (diagrams, performance photos) are well placed.
Literature – Quality and Relevance
The literature selection is one of the strongest aspects of this work. She cites both technical and philosophical sources—from G. Kramer’s Sonification Report to McCarthy & Wright’s Technology as Experience and Tanaka & Donnarumma’s The Body as Musical Instrument.
For me personally, her bibliography became a guide for my own research. I found new readings that I will also include in my master thesis.
Final Assessment – Strengths, Weaknesses, and Personal Reflection
Overall, Sound response to physicality is a well-balanced, thoughtful, and inspiring thesis that connects technology, perception, and art.
Her biggest strength lies in how she translates complex sensor-based interactions into human experience and emotional resonance. The way she conceptualizes embodied interaction and indirect interactivity is meaningful and poetic.
The main weakness, in my opinion, is the lack of detailed technical documentation—especially regarding how the IMU data was mapped to sound and multichannel output. As someone building my own sonification system with the x-IMU3 and contact microphones, I would have loved to see the exact data chain from sensor to audio.
Despite that, her work inspired me profoundly. It reminded me that the psychological and experiential dimensions of sound are just as important as the data itself. In my own project, where I sonify the movement of a surfboard and the feeling of the ocean, I will carry this understanding forward: that sonification is not only about data translation but about shaping human experience through sound.
