Neuro-Com, Neuroscience & Communication, is a Research Group of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising Department, CAP, in Communication Faculty, at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

The line of research that we present here is called ‘Neuroscience in Communication. Neuroesthetics and Neurocinematics of Audiovisual Phenomena. Qualias, Cognits and Intertextual Memory Networks’.


There are now some new disciplines across Neuroscience, which may help to contextualize Communication Sciences:

  1. *Intertextuality based in brain-process of the Memory, based on the theories of Joaquin Fuster, Christof Koch, Ned Block and recent discoveries of neural activity of memory and neural networks. Intertextuality is also presented as a useful tool for understanding the relevance of the audiovisual perception in the educational message.

  1. *Neuroesthetics trying to find a cognitive explanation for creator’s behavior and aesthetic perception. This field of research counts on the Institute of Neuroesthetics at Oxford and Berkeley, and neuroscientists Semir Zeki and Vilayanur Ramachandran, between so many others.

  1. *New Neurocinematics upgrades perception of cinema and its reconstruction by the viewer. It has Projections’ Journal, the cognitive knowledge from University of Wisconsin, University of California at Berkeley, Nobel literature Edelman and Uri Hasson, in Israel, as its pioneers supporters.

Neuroscientific dimension should be added for understanding artificial moving images. A neocognitive theory is being drawn, beyond its psychological aspect. It seems to be successful but limited and links brain knowledge to the artistic and aesthetic dimension of film theory.

Communication Sciences must participate in current Neuroscience research as a discipline whose object for study is the audiovisual work and, beyond, the understanding of world’s vision, in a real or virtual sense.

The explanation of motion perception in Communication Sciences, has used during many decades the myth of persistence of vision as an obscure argument that has been repeated from book to book, without upgrading or contrasting neuroscientific knowledge. The myth was debunked by Wertheimer in early XX, however it still persists in many film-theory texts.

Many efforts of the scientific community and the cognitive sciences are about to change one of the oldest problems: mind-body duality and the knowledge of how we apprehend the world. Nothing is equal, and Communication Sciences have a lot to say and study.

If a scientific discipline seeks to analyze the images and the understanding of visual phenomena as Communication Sciences do, it’s needed to take into account the foundation on how humans perceive the visual image in film, television, projectors or computer screens.

Talking about neuroscience and film theory seems to be a strange and unusual jump. But it will become less strange in some years. If the persistence of vision has nothing to do with the perception of apparent motion, do we use a different system to perceive the every day reality and to see a film, a computer or a TV screen?  Do we see the films as we see the life? The answer to these questions has some theoretical implications that flow from the direct experience of the cinematic image to the cinema-eye theories or the outdated psychoanalytic theory of movies, between others.

The following questions and lines of investigation are part of our interest:

  1. *Are there differences between real and apparent motion’s perception? Do we have different brain behavior when seeing real movement or audiovisual one?

  1. *What implications may have the knowledge of brain mechanisms in cinematographic theories?

  1. *Impact of cognitive neuroscience in media creation and perception.

  1. *Brain mechanisms underlying the picture-making.

  1. *Neuroesthetics and Universal Laws of Art.

Lines of Research