Brain, coma, vegetative state and misdiagnosis.
http://news.aol.ca/article/mom-son-in-coma-heard-everything-for-23-years/743193/?icid=maincanada-toshibadl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.ca%2Farticle%2Fmom-son-in-coma-heard-everything-for-23-years%2F743193%2F
Summary
This is a truly appalling story about a Belgian man who after a car accident fell (as doctors thought) into a coma and then had been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. The accident occurred more than 20 years ago, and the man claims that while during the whole time he was fully aware of what was happening around him in the hospital, he could not respond or even cry out, because he was paralysed. It was recommended that the family would let him die. Fortunately, they refused to accept the diagnosis and continued to fight for him all these years. His mother, who was always convinced that he was conscious, took him to the USA five times (!) to perform medical tests. About three years ago, they finally got in touch with Professor Steven Laureys of Belgium's Coma Science Institute. Laureys conducted a specialized PET scan that was not available in the 80th, and the scan determined that the patient was conscious. The neurologist who worked with him said they saw in the scan that his brain was “almost normal”. They attempted to establish some communication with the patient, and finally he managed to move his foot slightly to stir a computer device to indicate yes or no. Then they attached a special touch-screen to his wheelchair and he started to communicate extensively. Since then he had been diagnosed with a “locked-in syndrome”, a condition in which a person cannot move or speak, but is able to think and reason. While mentally, he appears to be absolutely normal, (he has just started writing a book about his experience), doctors think that his physical condition is unlikely to improve. However, his mother refuses to give up. She says, “We continue to search and search. For 26 years already”
Response
I cannot imagine what this unfortunate individual was going through. To be able to feel, think, meditate, hear, see, understand, reflect, but not to move, respond, speak or even cry- for 23 years- this is inconceivable. During that time, the patient’s father had died and he heard the sad news in the hospital, but could not respond or show any emotion. I am not sure that it can be called a “happy ending”, but at least due to the heroic and perhaps superhuman efforts of his mother the man is still alive today. However, reading this report I could not help remembering the heartbreaking case of Terry Schiavo. She was a young and successful Florida woman, who after experiencing cardiac arrest in 1990 resulting in extensive brain damage was diagnosed as being in persistent vegetative state. She spent almost 15 years in a hospital, on life support, unable to speak, reason, feed herself and so on. Several years later, her former husband filed a petition to remove her feeding tube, which her parents surely opposed. That is how their prolonged legal battle started. I lived in the USA at that time, and witnessed the end of this story, when in the beginning of 2005, the final decision was made to remove her feeding tube. While she was dying, it appeared that the entire country was involved in the case, from the ordinary citizens to the Governor of Florida (a brother of President Bush), the United States Congress and the President himself. However, nothing worked, court decision could not be overturned, and Terry was allowed to die. After her death, the autopsy confirmed that her brain was extensively damaged in all regions, and it weighed only 615 g, as a result of the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Nonetheless, I still cannot get rid of the feeling that something was wrong. There was a lot of publicity around this case, and I watched a video of Terry with her mother in the hospital. It appeared that Terry responded to her mother talk with smile, and occasional nods, while her facial expressions were definitely changing. Interestingly, I just reviewed a study published by the same Dr. Laureys who helped the man in this story. The study demonstrated that about 41% of patients in minimally conscious state might be misdiagnosed. The condition of these patients is very often diagnosed as vegetative state, which associated with a much lower chance of recovery. That is what Dr. laureys has to say, "Differentiating the vegetative from the minimally conscious state is often one of the most challenging tasks facing clinicians involved in the care of patients with disorders of consciousness. Misdiagnosis can lead to grave consequences, especially in end-of-life decision-making".
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The origins of music and language.
Book Review
Steven Mithen
“The Singing Neanderthals” 2005, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London
Summary
I have recently (re)read a fascinating book by one of the scientists featured in the video that we watched last week, Steven Mithen. It is called “The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body”. The author maintains that while some of universal attributes of the human mind such as capacity for language and creative thought have been addressed in the literature, music has been neglected (or underestimated/misunderstood). He is convinced that the evolution of music holds the key to language. In the book, he reviews extensive evidence from anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and sociology to demonstrate that music predated language, and to explain why music is so important to humans. The book consists of two parts. Part I concerns with character of music and language and their relationship. Here, the author attempts to answer such questions as, how music and language are constituted in the brain; how we communicate with prelinguistic infants; and the relationship between music and emotion. Part II explores the communication system of monkeys, apes, Early Humans, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The main questions in this part are: how characteristics of music and language are explained by the evolutionary history; how these characteristics relate to the evolution of the human mind, body and society.
Response
It appears that the book originated as a scientific dialogue or rather polemics with such prominent scientist as Dr. Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. It all started when Dr. Pinker in his 1997 book “How the mind works” made his famous statement “music is nothing more than auditory cheesecake”. He maintained that from the evolutionary point of view music could not be compared with such important attributes as language, vision, social reasoning, and physical knowledge. Pinker claimed that music is an evolutionary by-product. In other words, it emerged as a result of the development of other capacities that have direct adaptive value. He attributed the existence of music to the pleasure it provides. In his opinion, “music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged”. While for us as musicians, this assertion might sound outrageous, interestingly, Dr. Pinker is not alone. Professor Dan Sperber from the French National Center for the scientific research in Paris in his 1997 book “Explaining culture” calls music “an evolutionary parasite”. John Barrow, cosmologist, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge in England maintains that music “has no role in survival of our species”. These people are among the most influential scientists in the world today, and, perhaps, their opinion counts. Besides, this does make sense. Music does not belong to the list of characteristics that are essential for survival. Additionally, I have a large collection of quotes from renowned individuals (from the celebrated artists to distinguished philosophers and writers) which appear to not only support the view that music is biologically superfluous but also question its moral and aesthetic value. Here are just two examples: “Music is essentially useless, as life is”. (George Santayana 1863-1952, a Spanish philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist). “My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, music”. (Vladimir Nabokov, 1899-1977, a Russian-born novelist, one of the greatest English prose stylist). However, if music is worthless and biologically unessential, why we still have it? To answer this question, Mithen examines recent anthropological findings on Neanderthals, which appear to endorse the view that Neanderthals had no language. (Just to update, the latest discovery of the FOXP2 gene (which is called “the speech and language gene) in Neanderthals suggests they may have had language skills). Neanderthals had evolved in Europe about 250.000 years ago, survived the ice ages, and become extinct about 30.000 years ago. In other words, they existed for more than 200.000 years! Amazingly, they survived dramatic environmental changes in ice-age Europe. Obviously, in order to survive they needed intelligent decision-making and extensive social collaboration. So, how did they communicate without language? Mithen maintains that they developed music like, complex communication system, which he calls Hmmmmm: holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical, and mimetic. He argues that while there were no words, this system consisted of a combination of gestures, dance, vocal replication and large number of holistic utterances, where each utterance functioned as a complete message in itself. I can imagine a group of Neanderthals communicating in this manner-dancing, using a variety of auxiliary tools, gesticulating, and vocalizing while preparing for such complex social activities as, for instance, hunting. This might sound bizarre, but I have witnessed a similar case with my own eyes. When I was a Music Director of the Youth Jerusalem Orchestra, we had an extremely knowledgeable conductor, with exceptional professional skills and qualities. However, there was a problem. As a recent immigrant, he did not speak Hebrew at all. Yet, he managed to communicate with the kids, and they created a great music together! His system of communication consisted of exact the same things that Mithen described in the book. He gesticulated profusely, sang, jumped, used his stand to produce a variety of different noises, vocalized, imitated the instruments with his voice, and even danced. Somehow, the kids managed to catch the meaning of his messages and the orchestra did quite well. Evidently, the Neanderthals’ communication system did not disappear altogether. Mithen maintains that the remnants of this structure can be observed today in the way that mothers communicate with prelinguistic infants. They vocalize, and employ a great variety of facial expressions and their babies seem to understand them perfectly. Mithen argues that both language and music share the same source of origin. In fact, this idea is not altogether new. It could be traced back to Darwin, and it was recently advanced by a Canadian neurologist Steven Brown, who coined a term “musilanguage” to describe this sort of communication method. I found this idea fascinating.
Steven Mithen
“The Singing Neanderthals” 2005, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London
Summary
I have recently (re)read a fascinating book by one of the scientists featured in the video that we watched last week, Steven Mithen. It is called “The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body”. The author maintains that while some of universal attributes of the human mind such as capacity for language and creative thought have been addressed in the literature, music has been neglected (or underestimated/misunderstood). He is convinced that the evolution of music holds the key to language. In the book, he reviews extensive evidence from anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and sociology to demonstrate that music predated language, and to explain why music is so important to humans. The book consists of two parts. Part I concerns with character of music and language and their relationship. Here, the author attempts to answer such questions as, how music and language are constituted in the brain; how we communicate with prelinguistic infants; and the relationship between music and emotion. Part II explores the communication system of monkeys, apes, Early Humans, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The main questions in this part are: how characteristics of music and language are explained by the evolutionary history; how these characteristics relate to the evolution of the human mind, body and society.
Response
It appears that the book originated as a scientific dialogue or rather polemics with such prominent scientist as Dr. Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. It all started when Dr. Pinker in his 1997 book “How the mind works” made his famous statement “music is nothing more than auditory cheesecake”. He maintained that from the evolutionary point of view music could not be compared with such important attributes as language, vision, social reasoning, and physical knowledge. Pinker claimed that music is an evolutionary by-product. In other words, it emerged as a result of the development of other capacities that have direct adaptive value. He attributed the existence of music to the pleasure it provides. In his opinion, “music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged”. While for us as musicians, this assertion might sound outrageous, interestingly, Dr. Pinker is not alone. Professor Dan Sperber from the French National Center for the scientific research in Paris in his 1997 book “Explaining culture” calls music “an evolutionary parasite”. John Barrow, cosmologist, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge in England maintains that music “has no role in survival of our species”. These people are among the most influential scientists in the world today, and, perhaps, their opinion counts. Besides, this does make sense. Music does not belong to the list of characteristics that are essential for survival. Additionally, I have a large collection of quotes from renowned individuals (from the celebrated artists to distinguished philosophers and writers) which appear to not only support the view that music is biologically superfluous but also question its moral and aesthetic value. Here are just two examples: “Music is essentially useless, as life is”. (George Santayana 1863-1952, a Spanish philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist). “My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, music”. (Vladimir Nabokov, 1899-1977, a Russian-born novelist, one of the greatest English prose stylist). However, if music is worthless and biologically unessential, why we still have it? To answer this question, Mithen examines recent anthropological findings on Neanderthals, which appear to endorse the view that Neanderthals had no language. (Just to update, the latest discovery of the FOXP2 gene (which is called “the speech and language gene) in Neanderthals suggests they may have had language skills). Neanderthals had evolved in Europe about 250.000 years ago, survived the ice ages, and become extinct about 30.000 years ago. In other words, they existed for more than 200.000 years! Amazingly, they survived dramatic environmental changes in ice-age Europe. Obviously, in order to survive they needed intelligent decision-making and extensive social collaboration. So, how did they communicate without language? Mithen maintains that they developed music like, complex communication system, which he calls Hmmmmm: holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical, and mimetic. He argues that while there were no words, this system consisted of a combination of gestures, dance, vocal replication and large number of holistic utterances, where each utterance functioned as a complete message in itself. I can imagine a group of Neanderthals communicating in this manner-dancing, using a variety of auxiliary tools, gesticulating, and vocalizing while preparing for such complex social activities as, for instance, hunting. This might sound bizarre, but I have witnessed a similar case with my own eyes. When I was a Music Director of the Youth Jerusalem Orchestra, we had an extremely knowledgeable conductor, with exceptional professional skills and qualities. However, there was a problem. As a recent immigrant, he did not speak Hebrew at all. Yet, he managed to communicate with the kids, and they created a great music together! His system of communication consisted of exact the same things that Mithen described in the book. He gesticulated profusely, sang, jumped, used his stand to produce a variety of different noises, vocalized, imitated the instruments with his voice, and even danced. Somehow, the kids managed to catch the meaning of his messages and the orchestra did quite well. Evidently, the Neanderthals’ communication system did not disappear altogether. Mithen maintains that the remnants of this structure can be observed today in the way that mothers communicate with prelinguistic infants. They vocalize, and employ a great variety of facial expressions and their babies seem to understand them perfectly. Mithen argues that both language and music share the same source of origin. In fact, this idea is not altogether new. It could be traced back to Darwin, and it was recently advanced by a Canadian neurologist Steven Brown, who coined a term “musilanguage” to describe this sort of communication method. I found this idea fascinating.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The acoustics of concert halls and my living room
Music and Brain Blog #1
Brian Graiser
Jourdain, Robert, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy, HarperCollins Publishers, NY, 1997. Chapter 2: …to tone…, subsection “Concert Halls,” pgs. 46-51.
Synopsis: Often overlooked in importance by audiences, the concert hall acts as an acoustic resonator for the instruments played within, and could therefore be considered an extension of those instruments. Soloists and ensemble conductors must thoughtfully adapt to a particular hall’s resonance, temperature, humidity, and other factors in order to produce the best possible sound. The nature of unrestricted sound is to spread out in all directions and dissipate quickly; by controlling the path of the sound through surface materials and positions, concert halls make it possible for sound to travel all the way to the back of the audience without losing too much intensity. There are three kinds of sound that concert hall acousticians are concerned with: direct sound, which travels directly from the performers to the audience; early sound, which is comprised of the initial sound reflections from the walls and ceiling reaching the audience; and reverberation, which is composed of the subsequent echoes and sound reflections heard after the early sound. A venue is considered “intimate” when the first reflections of the early sound reach the audience no later than 0.02 seconds after the direct sound; this quality is impossible to produce in a larger concert hall due to the wide space and vast walls and ceilings, so it is typically reserved for solo or chamber concert venues that are smaller in nature. Conversely, while reverberation is a rare occurrence in nature or smaller venues, its prominence in large concert halls was a key factor in the development and evolution of large ensembles such as symphony orchestras; the longer resonance led to a new concept of harmonic blending and progression that was inconceivable in a drier, “intimate” room. Acousticians consider a sound’s reverberation to have stopped once it has dwindled to one millionth of its original strength, and as such can be used as an ideal measuring tool: it is desirable to achieve one second of reverberation for chamber music, 1.5 seconds for early Classical or minimalist large ensemble music, and as much as 2.25 seconds for lush Romantic symphonies. However, the majority of music listening today occurs at home, not in a concert hall. The smaller room delivers a high degree of intimacy, but the reverberation is warped; the numerous objects and surfaces in the room produce a stronger-than-usual intensity in the reverberation, but also cause it to disappear within 0.5 seconds. To solve this problem, most recording studios add in synthetic reverberation to their products; however, these false reverberations are compounded when introduced to an irregular venue (such as a living room), further distorting the sound from its original form and quality.
Reflection: The physics of acoustics and resonance has always fascinated me; as a percussionist, I deal with the acoustic properties of marimba resonators and timpani bowls on a daily basis, so I really don’t have much of a choice in the matter. However, one thing that has really gained my interest is the science behind why certain halls make certain percussion instruments sound much better than others. While Walter Hall is a great venue, it can also lend a dryness to some ensembles, and a lushness to others. Perhaps this is a product of sound directionality and performer positioning; many concert halls have a spatial threshold, where performers beyond a certain point of the stage do not get “picked up” by all the reflective surfaces of the hall. Another thing to note is that unlike most wind instruments or vocalists, most percussion instruments project their sound straight up (excluding instruments such as bass drums, which are purposefully angled towards the audience); the sound from a marimba or vibraphone bar travels down into the resonator tube, hits the cap at the end, and is reflected back up towards the ceiling (inexperienced personnel do not know this, and as result many microphones are erroneously placed underneath the bars of the instrument, rather than above them).
Another thing that piqued my curiosity was Jourdain’s condemnation of recording techniques aimed at the home market. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that living rooms “ruin” music recordings, but it’s obvious that the sound quality experienced in a concert hall seat is much different than that experienced on my couch. In terms of mass marketability, adding in false reverb in the editing phase of a recording makes sense; it gives a vague sensation of being in a larger room, and adds a degree of resonance that would not naturally occur in the average living room. However, for the true audiophiles out there, isn’t there a better option?
I had a thought (a potentially expensive one, but worthwhile in my opinion): what if recording engineers placed more microphones in various locations of the concert hall during a recording session, and focused less on capturing the immediate, intimate sound that occurs on the stage itself? Beyond the standard “ambient sound” microphones, I would be interested in seeing what would happen if an array of two dozen or so microphones were spread throughout the hall (particularly in the “sweet spot” of the audience, which is typically the middle of the mezzanine level), and only a handful of microphones were actually placed on the stage with the musicians. From there, studio engineers could mix the levels to create the desired balance, but they would have many more sources of early sound and reverberation in relation to the usual abundance of direct sound. Transfer those properties to a 5.1 surround sound speaker system, with the rear speakers assigned to only producing the appropriate reflections of early sound and reverberation, and I believe one can create a much richer and more realistic listening experience.
Brian Graiser
Jourdain, Robert, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy, HarperCollins Publishers, NY, 1997. Chapter 2: …to tone…, subsection “Concert Halls,” pgs. 46-51.
Synopsis: Often overlooked in importance by audiences, the concert hall acts as an acoustic resonator for the instruments played within, and could therefore be considered an extension of those instruments. Soloists and ensemble conductors must thoughtfully adapt to a particular hall’s resonance, temperature, humidity, and other factors in order to produce the best possible sound. The nature of unrestricted sound is to spread out in all directions and dissipate quickly; by controlling the path of the sound through surface materials and positions, concert halls make it possible for sound to travel all the way to the back of the audience without losing too much intensity. There are three kinds of sound that concert hall acousticians are concerned with: direct sound, which travels directly from the performers to the audience; early sound, which is comprised of the initial sound reflections from the walls and ceiling reaching the audience; and reverberation, which is composed of the subsequent echoes and sound reflections heard after the early sound. A venue is considered “intimate” when the first reflections of the early sound reach the audience no later than 0.02 seconds after the direct sound; this quality is impossible to produce in a larger concert hall due to the wide space and vast walls and ceilings, so it is typically reserved for solo or chamber concert venues that are smaller in nature. Conversely, while reverberation is a rare occurrence in nature or smaller venues, its prominence in large concert halls was a key factor in the development and evolution of large ensembles such as symphony orchestras; the longer resonance led to a new concept of harmonic blending and progression that was inconceivable in a drier, “intimate” room. Acousticians consider a sound’s reverberation to have stopped once it has dwindled to one millionth of its original strength, and as such can be used as an ideal measuring tool: it is desirable to achieve one second of reverberation for chamber music, 1.5 seconds for early Classical or minimalist large ensemble music, and as much as 2.25 seconds for lush Romantic symphonies. However, the majority of music listening today occurs at home, not in a concert hall. The smaller room delivers a high degree of intimacy, but the reverberation is warped; the numerous objects and surfaces in the room produce a stronger-than-usual intensity in the reverberation, but also cause it to disappear within 0.5 seconds. To solve this problem, most recording studios add in synthetic reverberation to their products; however, these false reverberations are compounded when introduced to an irregular venue (such as a living room), further distorting the sound from its original form and quality.
Reflection: The physics of acoustics and resonance has always fascinated me; as a percussionist, I deal with the acoustic properties of marimba resonators and timpani bowls on a daily basis, so I really don’t have much of a choice in the matter. However, one thing that has really gained my interest is the science behind why certain halls make certain percussion instruments sound much better than others. While Walter Hall is a great venue, it can also lend a dryness to some ensembles, and a lushness to others. Perhaps this is a product of sound directionality and performer positioning; many concert halls have a spatial threshold, where performers beyond a certain point of the stage do not get “picked up” by all the reflective surfaces of the hall. Another thing to note is that unlike most wind instruments or vocalists, most percussion instruments project their sound straight up (excluding instruments such as bass drums, which are purposefully angled towards the audience); the sound from a marimba or vibraphone bar travels down into the resonator tube, hits the cap at the end, and is reflected back up towards the ceiling (inexperienced personnel do not know this, and as result many microphones are erroneously placed underneath the bars of the instrument, rather than above them).
Another thing that piqued my curiosity was Jourdain’s condemnation of recording techniques aimed at the home market. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that living rooms “ruin” music recordings, but it’s obvious that the sound quality experienced in a concert hall seat is much different than that experienced on my couch. In terms of mass marketability, adding in false reverb in the editing phase of a recording makes sense; it gives a vague sensation of being in a larger room, and adds a degree of resonance that would not naturally occur in the average living room. However, for the true audiophiles out there, isn’t there a better option?
I had a thought (a potentially expensive one, but worthwhile in my opinion): what if recording engineers placed more microphones in various locations of the concert hall during a recording session, and focused less on capturing the immediate, intimate sound that occurs on the stage itself? Beyond the standard “ambient sound” microphones, I would be interested in seeing what would happen if an array of two dozen or so microphones were spread throughout the hall (particularly in the “sweet spot” of the audience, which is typically the middle of the mezzanine level), and only a handful of microphones were actually placed on the stage with the musicians. From there, studio engineers could mix the levels to create the desired balance, but they would have many more sources of early sound and reverberation in relation to the usual abundance of direct sound. Transfer those properties to a 5.1 surround sound speaker system, with the rear speakers assigned to only producing the appropriate reflections of early sound and reverberation, and I believe one can create a much richer and more realistic listening experience.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Musicians slightly crazy, but smarter?
Reference
Gibson, C., Folley, B. S., Park, Sohee (2008). Enhanced divergent thinking and creativity in musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy . Brain and Cognition, 69(2009), 162-169. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.07.009.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine creativity as demonstrated by divergent thinking and to link it to personality traits, intelligence (IQ), and activity in the frontal cortical regions of the brain, which have shown increased activity in association with creative (divergent) thinking.
Divergent thinking has long been seen as a component of creativity as it requires flexibility in thinking and problem solving, in particular, the ability to guide one’s thoughts without clearly defined parameters. Interestingly, in a previous study, people displaying more schizotypal personality traits also showed greater activity in the frontal cortical area of the brain, demonstrating a link between creativity and psychosis-proneness.
Musicians are seen as highly creative people, so the authors of the study recruited 20 classical music students and 20 non-musicians for two experiments. All participants were assessed for intelligence, handedness (fine motor skills in each hand), and verbal fluency. They also filled out questionnaires regarding creativity and schizotypal personality.
EXPERIMENT #1:
a) Remote Associates Test (RAT) – Participants were given three words and were asked to find another associated word. They could generate as many words as they want but there’s one correct answer.
b) Divergent Thinking Test (DTT) – Participants were asked to generate uses for objects alone and in combination with others. There was no time limit and they could come up with as many uses as they wanted.
EXPERIMENT #2: (used a subset of the original group: 8 musicians, 7 non-musicians)
Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) was used to measure blood oxygenation changes in the frontal cortex during a modified DTT.
RESULTS:
Musicians self-reported greater creative and schizotypal traits in the questionnaires. Musicians showed higher levels of divergent thinking and IQ (including verbal). There was no difference in handedness between groups. Musicians scored better on both the RAT and DTT. Musicians showed greater activity in both sides of the frontal cortex whereas non-musicians showed more activity in the left side.
Reflection:
This study, by the authors’ own account seems to provide greater credence to the idea that music makes you smarter. Musicians also seem to be more creative and think more ‘out-of-the-box’ than non-musicians. Perhaps a bit more disturbing is the link to psychosis-proneness, though musicians in this study did not achieve clinical levels. It’s also not the first time that higher IQ has been linked to mental health concerns (click here for an example).
Musical training certainly encourages an expansion of the imagination, and even without knowing that music causes activity in many areas of the brain, it’s easy to recognize the full-body involvement it calls for, not to mention the emotional element that factors into the equation. Divergent thinking may be an outcome of our need to draw from diverse thoughts and experiences----tactile, sensual, emotional, etc. It makes sense that the cognitive-perceptual part of the schizotypal questionnaire has to do with “perceptual aberrations and magical thinking”. I’m not sure what they mean by magical thinking, exactly, but what else to we do when we write, improvise, or interpret a piece, but conceptualize the world in ways that others may not?
I do wonder, however, whether musical training can cause a greater manifestation of these traits, or whether those predisposed to toward these traits and ways of thinking gravitate toward music and other arts.
Gibson, C., Folley, B. S., Park, Sohee (2008). Enhanced divergent thinking and creativity in musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy . Brain and Cognition, 69(2009), 162-169. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.07.009.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine creativity as demonstrated by divergent thinking and to link it to personality traits, intelligence (IQ), and activity in the frontal cortical regions of the brain, which have shown increased activity in association with creative (divergent) thinking.
Divergent thinking has long been seen as a component of creativity as it requires flexibility in thinking and problem solving, in particular, the ability to guide one’s thoughts without clearly defined parameters. Interestingly, in a previous study, people displaying more schizotypal personality traits also showed greater activity in the frontal cortical area of the brain, demonstrating a link between creativity and psychosis-proneness.
Musicians are seen as highly creative people, so the authors of the study recruited 20 classical music students and 20 non-musicians for two experiments. All participants were assessed for intelligence, handedness (fine motor skills in each hand), and verbal fluency. They also filled out questionnaires regarding creativity and schizotypal personality.
EXPERIMENT #1:
a) Remote Associates Test (RAT) – Participants were given three words and were asked to find another associated word. They could generate as many words as they want but there’s one correct answer.
b) Divergent Thinking Test (DTT) – Participants were asked to generate uses for objects alone and in combination with others. There was no time limit and they could come up with as many uses as they wanted.
EXPERIMENT #2: (used a subset of the original group: 8 musicians, 7 non-musicians)
Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) was used to measure blood oxygenation changes in the frontal cortex during a modified DTT.
RESULTS:
Musicians self-reported greater creative and schizotypal traits in the questionnaires. Musicians showed higher levels of divergent thinking and IQ (including verbal). There was no difference in handedness between groups. Musicians scored better on both the RAT and DTT. Musicians showed greater activity in both sides of the frontal cortex whereas non-musicians showed more activity in the left side.
Reflection:
This study, by the authors’ own account seems to provide greater credence to the idea that music makes you smarter. Musicians also seem to be more creative and think more ‘out-of-the-box’ than non-musicians. Perhaps a bit more disturbing is the link to psychosis-proneness, though musicians in this study did not achieve clinical levels. It’s also not the first time that higher IQ has been linked to mental health concerns (click here for an example).
Musical training certainly encourages an expansion of the imagination, and even without knowing that music causes activity in many areas of the brain, it’s easy to recognize the full-body involvement it calls for, not to mention the emotional element that factors into the equation. Divergent thinking may be an outcome of our need to draw from diverse thoughts and experiences----tactile, sensual, emotional, etc. It makes sense that the cognitive-perceptual part of the schizotypal questionnaire has to do with “perceptual aberrations and magical thinking”. I’m not sure what they mean by magical thinking, exactly, but what else to we do when we write, improvise, or interpret a piece, but conceptualize the world in ways that others may not?
I do wonder, however, whether musical training can cause a greater manifestation of these traits, or whether those predisposed to toward these traits and ways of thinking gravitate toward music and other arts.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
“Williams Syndrome: A Hypermusical Species” from Oliver Sacks "Musicophilia"
Summary - Oliver Sacks writes about Williams Syndrome (known as Williams-Beuren syndrome in Europe). These children and adults are a fascinating group of individuals who love music, love people, and have the gift of gab. Generally, they have an IQ of less than 60 but are articulate. Sacks talks about one young girl (14) who describes an elephant’s appearance and personality in great narrative detail, but cannot draw an elephant that is recognizable in any way. In his book, Musicophilia, Sacks juxtaposes the writing with the drawing (p. 360), and the contradiction between cognitive skills is glaring. Williams children have difficulties with other tasks such as stacking blocks, adding numbers, the ability to tie their shoes or “judge obstacles and steps” (p. 359).
They are very social and engaging even to strangers, meeting their gazes, grabbing their hands, encouraging them to join in the activity at hand. This sensitivity is also evident in their music. They love music and can spend hours absorbed in it and react very emotionally to it. Their precocity in musical abilities is a common thread although only a few may become professional musicians. Sacks summarizes their personalities, “The three dispositions which are so heightened in people with Williams syndrome – the musical, the narrative, and the social – seem to go together, distinct yet intimately associated elements of the ardent expressive and communicative drive that is absolutely central in Williams syndrome” (p. 365).
It is quite rare to have Williams syndrome (1 in 10,000) and it wasn’t until 1961 that cardiologist, J.C.P Williams wrote about it (p. 365). Williams syndrome children and adults have heart and vessel defects. Another similarity is their facial appearance, which is sometimes described as ‘elfin’ with upturned noses, large eyes, small chins and round eyes. Williams syndrome children and adults have a tiny chromosomal deletion of 15-25 genes on one chromosome – which is “less than a thousandth part of the twenty-five thousand or so genes in the human genome” (p. 367).
Through brain imaging and a small number of autopsy reports, some discoveries have been made about Williams syndrome brains. Their brains are generally about 20% smaller than normal brains and the weight is distributed unevenly with the weight and size predominantly at the front of the brain. This disadvantages the occipital and parietal lobes but benefits the normal or “supernormal” (p. 365) size of the temporal lobes. The primary cortex is larger and “there seemed to be significant changes in the planum temporale – a structure known to be crucial for the perception of both speech and music, as well as for absolute pitch” (p. 366).
Another interesting difference in their brains is where they process “musicality” and emotional responses. In a comparison of Williams syndrome individuals, ‘normal’ individuals and professional musicians, it was discovered that Williams syndrome brains use a “wider set of neural structures to perceive and respond to music, including regions of the cerebellum, brain stem, and amygdala which are scarcely activated at all in normal subjects”. The active amygdala is thought to be responsible for “their almost helpless attraction to music” (p. 366). Some of the chromosomal and brain differences can account for the cognitive talents and problems exhibited by Williams syndrome individuals; however, questions remain that are still being researched. Some unknowns may be answered although some may not.
Reflection – Oliver Sacks opened this chapter by describing the summer camp in Massachusetts that he visited in the summer of 1995. This is the place that he first met Williams syndrome children and young adults, a place where he was immediately accepted and embraced. As he started to describe it, I thought about the fairly recent movie Camp Rock starring the infamous Jonas Brothers and Demi Lovato (at least in the tween world). It was based on the story of a summer camp, just like the real one, where young adults gathered for fun, camaraderie, and music. I thought about how it really was more the same than different, if Camp Rock had been a real summer camp and not full of Hollywood stereotypes and perfect hair. Then again, perhaps the musical ability and passion would have been greater in the real summer camp in Massachusetts. And if you live with a rare condition, it might be hard to find others that can relate to you, share your experiences, your struggles, your triumphs. I imagine, although I can't possibly claim to know, what a summer camp experience of like minds could mean for Williams syndrome individuals, family, and friends.
The stories of these children and adults described by Sacks are charming and engaging and amazing all at the same time. I was struck by the stark contrasts in their cognitive abilities, gifted and problematic at the same time. We are fortunate to live in a time when technology allows us to see how parts of the brain react to situations such as in the musicality-emotional response research. It shows that Williams syndrome brain processing is very special and unique. I recognize the impact of the differences in the brains, but also that a tiny chromosomal deficiency can make such an impact is ‘huge’ in my mind. We are truly complex and sophisticated beings and it is astounding how many babies are born each year without complication. I know that I comment in almost every blog on the marvel of our physiological and psychological being, but how can you not.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Alzheimer’s and Musical Memories
Summary: In mid October, I was watching the Bravo channel documentary titled The Musical Brain. This W-Five documentary highlighted interviews with several neuroscientists working in the area of the brain and music, as well as interviews with famous musicians such as Sting, Michael Buble, and Feist. Some of the scientists’ work caught my eye, specifically the work of Dr. Lola Cuddy and Dr. Petr Janata. There were many common threads through the commentaries but one thread in particular was about music, memory, and emotion.
Dr. Cuddy discussed an Alzheimer’s patient who would forget her husband but could remember all the songs from the time that she was a nurse in World War II, and that “preservation of the moment in music, the emotion in music even when they forget everything else”. Dr. Janata indicated that music is a “retrieval cue” and is the last part of the brain that goes in Alzheimer’s patients. Although I knew, at the moment I was watching this documentary, what Dr. Janata was generally referring to in the interview, I either did not make specific enough notes or the documentary producers clipped and snipped information that would give more specifics - so off I went in search of more detail in this area.
An article I found, Your brain on music highlights some fairly recent work of Janata, http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=980807
Janata discusses the area of the brain known as the medial prefrontal cortex and how it relates to memory and emotion, in both the younger population and Alzheimer’s patients. He explains that in Alzheimers, this area of the brain, the medial prefrontal cortex, is the last to atrophy so patients “brighten up, dance, sing, and can even recognize wrong notes in music from their past” which concurs with what Cuddy found in her patient. Music appears to be a “trigger to retrieve memories”.
So, stepping back in time to a younger life, one might ask how the connection between music, memories, and emotion becomes so intertwined in youth, and so sustaining into adult life and in the case of Alzheimers, in brain degeneration. One of Janata’s experiments, noted in this article, used 13 UC Davis undergrad student subjects. Comfortably resting in an MRI machine with headphones on, Janata exposed the student to snippets of popular and R&B musics that would have been popular during their adolescent and teen years (7-19). Since undergrad and age 19 might be concurrent, it appears that he also used music that would be part of their current repertoire. He used music that related to them during these years because he felt that this hormonal and change-intensive time in their lives is more connected to music they listen to - the music becomes more involved in their social life and “sense of self”. It is the connection of the music to our memories, some of them strong emotional memories, that may “maintain a sense of self as we age”.
Janata also believes that there is a “hub” in our brain for music, memory, and emotions, and this hub is the medial prefrontal cortex. His first test results clearly pointed to this hub when “the medial prefrontal cortex lit up like a Christmas tree whenever strong autobiographical memories were evoked”, but a second data-test result showed activity throughout the brain (in MRI scans). Apparently, the second test results were showing non-music brain activity that was also transpiring. So Janata refined his test and the third results supported his first findings that located a hub. What this highlights for him is that a way to give happiness, even for a short time, to patients suffering from Alzheimers is through music and perhaps more specifically, music that evokes personal memories and emotions.
Reflection: Every time I read a study related to the brain, or specifically to music and the brain, I am in awe. Our brains are so incredibly complex and sophisticated, and I often take for granted how everything just works the way we expect it to, until of course it doesn’t work how we expect it to. Our brains may not operate at ‘full’ capacity due to serious illness such as Alzheimers or Parkinsons, or age and hormones, or accident and injury, or genetics, or various other reasons. But then, I wonder what is full capacity any way and how would we know that we have ever reached it. How do we know that are brains are ‘telling’ us what full capacity is? What potential is still left uncovered? It appears to me that discovering this and other answers to questions about the brain involves research, study, and a great deal of speculation.
I also think about how music, memories, ideas, and experiences etc. get locked away from our consciousness until some outside event, whether positive or negative, triggers them again. How much information is actually stored in our brains? What information is stored in our brains that we may have no recollection of, and that may never be triggered and brought to our consciousness again? Even in a relatively 'healthy' brain, what thoughts and experiences did we have that we might never remember we had?
Getting back to Janata’s research, as noted in this article, it appears to compliment other research and findings in in this area. Through his work, we have discovered a little bit more about the physiology of the brain, but perhaps more importantly, it can guide us in routes of discovery in music therapy. We can investigate ways, through music, that may improve the quality of life for those suffering from illnesses of this kind, and for the family and friends who love and support them.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Musical Training, Brain Structures, and Behaviour
Reference
Hyde, K. L., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A. & Schlaug, G. (2009). Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019-3025. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118-08.2009.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine brain structure changes and correlated musical behaviour in two groups of children. The "instrumental" group was made up of 15 children (mean age: 6.32 years) and the "control" group was made up of 16 children (mean age: 5.9 years). For 15 months, the instrumental group received half-hour weekly keyboard lessons while the control group participated in a weekly 40-minute group music class that involved singing and playing with drums and bells. Before and after the 15-month period, MRI scans were done and each child was given music behaviour tests. These tests consisted of
Near-transfer measures (These test skills that are directly related to music participation.)
a) a 4-finger motor skill test for each hand
b) a melodic and rhythmic discrimination test
Far-transfer measures (These test skills that are further removed from music participation.)
a) object assembly test
b) block design test
c) vocabulary test
Researchers found that the students in the instrumental group experienced greater structural changes in motor-related areas of the brain. This was correlated and predicted by improvements in left-hand motor skills. Changes in the right auditory area were correlated and predicted by improvements in melodic/rhythmic discrimination. No advantage was gained by the instrumental group over the control group in the far-transfer skills. These findings support results of tests on musicians and non-musicians.
They also found structural changes in the brain outside of the motor and auditory areas. Researchers were particularly excited by changes observed in the left posterior pericingulate region, since this is in the vicinity of Brodmann area 31, which is involved in the integration of visual information and the limbic system. Musical notation and its emotional interpretation is an example of this type of integration.
Reflection
In reading this study, I did wonder, "So what if the brain can change in just 15 months?" Will this make a difference in how I do things now? In what I choose to do? How I choose to teach?
To be honest, I don’t know, but perhaps it ought to. There are already many reasons, not specifically conceived as brain development reasons, why I make decisions as it is. In particular, my reasons for choosing to focus on music-related issues did not come from a consideration of how it would change or help my brain, per se. But, admittedly, since the brain controls everything, I guess indirectly, this is what I’ve done. More precisely, it seems to me that music provides access to a part of people that other means don’t seem to get at the same way.
Indeed, this study shows that music changes the brain, even in areas that are just beyond the direct music/motor-related centres. In reading both Jourdain’s Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy and Levitin’s This Is Your Brain on Music, there appears to be much evidence that music involves the whole body, the whole brain. Even without such proof, I think most of us have experienced this.
What significance does that have? It seems to me, that development of the whole person in many different ways allows for a more varied way of thinking, and maybe a different way of looking at day-to-day problems---personally, socially, globally. Not that by listening to or playing music, we can look at, say, environmental issues, and solve them “musically”, but by developing as many parts of ourselves, our brains, as we can, we’ll have that many more tools at our disposal for collaborating on issues.*
It therefore interested me to see that the Toronto Star ran a series of articles about brain science-informed education: http://www.thestar.com/topic/Atkinson2009 as I had wondered for some time whether knowing what's happening in the brain could someday allow me to teach and play the piano more effectively by targeting areas known to be developed by certain tasks. A new movement is beginning to look at exactly how neuroscience can improve education.
An instinctive concern of mine in reading the summary of this study is that focus on brain structure and resultant behaviour may end up sidestepping other important factors in the learning environment. In this study, for example, factors such as teacher experience and interaction with each of the groups was not mentioned; neither was interaction between students in the group class. Perhaps the instrumental group developed more, in part, because of the one-on-one attention that was given.
Nonetheless, the idea that the brain remains malleable even into old age is such a remarkable discovery. It's a liberating thought that change is possible at every stage. It gives me a sense of motivation---there's always a reason to learn and to teach. The application of neuroscience to education, if done in dialogue and collaboration with those who influence and are influenced by the field---philosophers, educators, parents, students, etc.---, seems another important tool in improving the field.
------------------------------------------
*I should note that though far-transfer skill did not seem greatly affected in this study, the authors surmise that this may have been due to a) too short a duration for the effects to be seen, b) varying intensities of keyboard practice among the children), c) perhaps the sample being too small.
Hyde, K. L., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A. & Schlaug, G. (2009). Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019-3025. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118-08.2009.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine brain structure changes and correlated musical behaviour in two groups of children. The "instrumental" group was made up of 15 children (mean age: 6.32 years) and the "control" group was made up of 16 children (mean age: 5.9 years). For 15 months, the instrumental group received half-hour weekly keyboard lessons while the control group participated in a weekly 40-minute group music class that involved singing and playing with drums and bells. Before and after the 15-month period, MRI scans were done and each child was given music behaviour tests. These tests consisted of
Near-transfer measures (These test skills that are directly related to music participation.)
a) a 4-finger motor skill test for each hand
b) a melodic and rhythmic discrimination test
Far-transfer measures (These test skills that are further removed from music participation.)
a) object assembly test
b) block design test
c) vocabulary test
Researchers found that the students in the instrumental group experienced greater structural changes in motor-related areas of the brain. This was correlated and predicted by improvements in left-hand motor skills. Changes in the right auditory area were correlated and predicted by improvements in melodic/rhythmic discrimination. No advantage was gained by the instrumental group over the control group in the far-transfer skills. These findings support results of tests on musicians and non-musicians.
They also found structural changes in the brain outside of the motor and auditory areas. Researchers were particularly excited by changes observed in the left posterior pericingulate region, since this is in the vicinity of Brodmann area 31, which is involved in the integration of visual information and the limbic system. Musical notation and its emotional interpretation is an example of this type of integration.
Reflection
In reading this study, I did wonder, "So what if the brain can change in just 15 months?" Will this make a difference in how I do things now? In what I choose to do? How I choose to teach?
To be honest, I don’t know, but perhaps it ought to. There are already many reasons, not specifically conceived as brain development reasons, why I make decisions as it is. In particular, my reasons for choosing to focus on music-related issues did not come from a consideration of how it would change or help my brain, per se. But, admittedly, since the brain controls everything, I guess indirectly, this is what I’ve done. More precisely, it seems to me that music provides access to a part of people that other means don’t seem to get at the same way.
Indeed, this study shows that music changes the brain, even in areas that are just beyond the direct music/motor-related centres. In reading both Jourdain’s Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy and Levitin’s This Is Your Brain on Music, there appears to be much evidence that music involves the whole body, the whole brain. Even without such proof, I think most of us have experienced this.
What significance does that have? It seems to me, that development of the whole person in many different ways allows for a more varied way of thinking, and maybe a different way of looking at day-to-day problems---personally, socially, globally. Not that by listening to or playing music, we can look at, say, environmental issues, and solve them “musically”, but by developing as many parts of ourselves, our brains, as we can, we’ll have that many more tools at our disposal for collaborating on issues.*
It therefore interested me to see that the Toronto Star ran a series of articles about brain science-informed education: http://www.thestar.com/topic/Atkinson2009 as I had wondered for some time whether knowing what's happening in the brain could someday allow me to teach and play the piano more effectively by targeting areas known to be developed by certain tasks. A new movement is beginning to look at exactly how neuroscience can improve education.
An instinctive concern of mine in reading the summary of this study is that focus on brain structure and resultant behaviour may end up sidestepping other important factors in the learning environment. In this study, for example, factors such as teacher experience and interaction with each of the groups was not mentioned; neither was interaction between students in the group class. Perhaps the instrumental group developed more, in part, because of the one-on-one attention that was given.
Nonetheless, the idea that the brain remains malleable even into old age is such a remarkable discovery. It's a liberating thought that change is possible at every stage. It gives me a sense of motivation---there's always a reason to learn and to teach. The application of neuroscience to education, if done in dialogue and collaboration with those who influence and are influenced by the field---philosophers, educators, parents, students, etc.---, seems another important tool in improving the field.
------------------------------------------
*I should note that though far-transfer skill did not seem greatly affected in this study, the authors surmise that this may have been due to a) too short a duration for the effects to be seen, b) varying intensities of keyboard practice among the children), c) perhaps the sample being too small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
