Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Effects of Musical Training on Structural Brain Development - A Longitudinal Study Krista L. Hyde, Jason Lerch,Andrea Norton, Marie Forgeard,


This study examined the structural brain and behavioural changes in the developing brain in response to long-term music training and to specifically address the question of whether structural brain differences seen in adults are a product of “nature” or “nurture”. As part of an on going study, the researchers investigated the structural brain changes in relation to behavioural changes in young children who received 15 months of instrumental music (keyboard) training relative to a group of children who did not. The children who did not participate in keyboard lessons were still involved in singing and percussion lessons at their own schools.

The subjects performed a 4-finger motor sequencing test for the left and right hands assessing fine finger motor skills, music listening skills, and discrimination skills. 5 additional non-music tests were also administered as well as behavioural tests. MRI scans were also used to determine brain differences.

There were no behavourial or brain differences between the Instrumental and Control children at base line prior to any music training. Therefore the brain differences of adults who have musical training are more likely to be the product of intensive musical training rather than biological predispositions. The children who had instrumental music lessons showed greater behaviour improvement on the finger motor tasks but not the non-musical tasks. They did show an improvement in the right primary motor area, corpus callosum, and the right auditory processing areas. While these were somewhat expected, there were additional developments in various frontal areas and occipital regions.

These findings indicate that plasticity can occur in brain regions that control primary functions important for playing a musical instrument and also in brain regions that might be responsible for the kind of multimodal sensorimotor integration likely to underlie instrumental learning.


I found it interesting that the control non-instrumental group was still participating in singing and drumming in regular mainstream school. The sensory motor areas were only activated when the students learned keyboarding, so we as educators need to look at what these students do in their private piano studios that is different from what we do with the whole class when singing and drumming. For one thing, students are required to use both hands when playing keyboard while reading two different staves of music. So this lead me to wonder about using body percussion in class, where students read two different lines of rhythms and play them simultenously on their own body. Or if singing and playing a rhythm would have the same benefits of keyboarding.

We know that brain plasticity in children occurs in regions related to playing a musical instrument. This study shows us that developing the brain through musical long-term experience leads to adult brain differences and promotes higher motor-skill functions. Music educators should therefore incorporate activities that promote this development in their own classrooms, and this is why we should advocate music education in the classroom all through elementary school, even if there is no direct correlation between performance on music tests and performance on other behavioural tests.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

A Summary- Language and speech: Distinguishing between aphasia, apraxia, and dysarthria in music therapy research and practice

King, B. (2007). Language and speech: Distinguishing between aphasia, apraxia, and dysarthria in music therapy research and practice. Music Therapy Perspectives, 25(1), 13-18. Retrieved from


Betsey King, o f Nazareth College, writes of the effectiveness of music therapy in the treatment of communication disorders in her 2007 publication, Language and speech: Distinguishing between aphasia, apraxia, and dysarthria in music therapy research and practice.

King states that music therapists can be effective in the treatment of communication disorders, however; it is critical that the distinction between language and speech is understood in order to evaluate the effectiveness of music therapy. The following example has been used to better clarify the aforementioned statement, “Clients who demonstrate increased intelligibility through singing may not have an understanding of the words they are producing, while other clients may have ideas they are unable to express” (King, 2007). King suggests that the problem exists with the definitions used for speech and language disorders; the literature in speech-language pathology is not consistent in terminology. She adds that for music therapists, the lack of a comprehensive model which integrates current knowledge of the neuroscience of speech and language, and an understanding the process of communication, with the music therapy strategies can have an impact on these areas.

Principles of Verbal Communication
The American Speech-Language Association has defined speech and language as a “language code made up of rules that include what words mean, how to make words, how to put them together, and what word combinations are best for what situations. Speech is an oral form of language” (ASHA, 2004).

King reports that the act of communication is a complicated process, from the conceptualization of an idea and the production and articulation of speech sounds by one person to the reception of those sounds and comprehension of their meaning by another. King quotes, Dronkers and Ogar (2004), “Thought must be translated into linguistic representations (itself not a trivial feat), which are sent to speech mechanisms that can coordinate, initiate, modify and execute the articulation of an utterance”.

King notes in this publication, how researchers and writers have described the process of verbal communication in both neurological and conceptual terms.

Neuroanatomy of Speech and Language
Multiple parts of the brain are involved in this process of speech and language. King reinforces the writings of various researchers who emphasize the need to acknowledge the numerous brain areas involved in speech production. Music therapists understand the evolution of how music is processed in the brain, therefore; “it may be argued that the perception, encoding, and reproduction of musical sounds requires neural mechanisms that are at least as complex as those for speech” (Zatorre, 2001). King recommends music therapists who are interested in this subject, not only familiarize themselves with the neurological structures and connections involved in verbal communication, but also with the areas of the brain related to communication. Not only will this help in understanding any articles or texts with the aim of discussing speech and language, says King, but it will also help music therapists facilitate cooperation and learning between themselves and speech-language pathologists (King, 2007).

Aphasia, Apraxia, and Dysarthria
“Aphasia is a language disorder. Apraxia is a disruption in motor planning. Dysarthria is a neuromuscular impairment that causes weakness or rigidity of movement” (King, 2007). It is critical that the distinctions between these disorders be comprehended in speech-language therapy but also importantly, be understood in music therapy. The following example was given in regards to speech disorder: “One client may be able to sing without understanding the significance of the lyrics; another may recognize the song but may not have the motor planning to produce the words of the song; and another may sing with clearly understanding the meaning of the words but not possessing clear articulation” (King, 2007).

King also refers to the three components of language: cognition, linguistics, and pragmatics. These are separate from the motor and muscle issues that can affect speech. Cognition refers to our interpretation and understanding of the world and how we store and access that information (King, 2007). This area of linguistics includes the meaning and form of language; terms used in linguistics include semantics and syntax. Pragmatics refers to how we use language in social settings. Music therapy can greatly impact these three areas by supporting memory and retrieval of information (Foster and Valentine, 2001), by reinforcing the sequencing of words and concepts through repetition, writes King (Kumin, 2003), and by utilizing various musical forms, as an example, call-response, to promote social interaction (Clair, Bernstein, and Johnson, 1995).

Aphasia is a disorder of language that results in “convoluted syntax and meaning” (King, 2007; LaPointe, 1997, p.22) and affects cognition, linguistics, and pragmatics. King lists several types of adult-onset aphasia, some which result in impaired speech output (nonfluent) and some which do not (fluent). Broca’s aphasia is characterized by “nonfluent, halting verbal output” with shortened phrases, incomplete sentences, and disturbances in prosody, the rhythm, and intonation of speech (Kearns, 1997).

Apraxia of speech (AOS) is a neurologic deficit that impairs motor planning and, thus one’s ability to “program, position, and sequentially move muscles for the volitional production of speech” (King, 2007; Hedge, 1997; Wertz, LaPointe, Rosenbek, 1984). Adult-onset apraxia often occurs in conjunction with Broca’s aphasia but is a distinct disorder that requires different interventions than those for aphasia (Kerns, 1997).

Dysarthria is characterized by weakness, in-coordination, or paralysis of the muscles necessary for speech (Hedge, 1997). While apraxia is a disorder of motor planning, dysarthria is a disorder of motor activation.

Another way of looking at speech and language dysfunctions is to examine the difference between propositional and automatic communication. Propositional speech is created and produced for a specific situation. In contrast, automatic utterances consist of well-rehearsed sequences and emotional speech such as profanity.

King recommends that music therapist be aware of these types of speech as they could easily be viewed as signs of speech recovery during singing; more than likely, the client is exhibiting automatic speech, rather than volitionally producing words to communicate specific information.

Music Therapy and Language
The research base in music therapy is not very substantive in providing clinicians with the effective treatments for communication disorders.

When examining the majority of the songs familiar to music therapy clients revealed that the lyrics seldom represented a concrete, functional concept; instead, metaphor and imagery were dominate factors which the clients related (Bortons and Koger, 2000). This means, according to King, that a client who has developed aphasia cannot use songs to recover the meaning of words.

A more recent development in the treatment of speech disorders through music is Rhythmic Speech Cuing, a technique developed at Colorado State University and based in neurological response to rhythm (Thaut, McIntosh, & Hoemberg, 2001; Cohen, 1998). This research demonstrates the ability of rhythm to significantly impact on motor skills, including those involved in speech.

Michael Thaut (Unkefer & Thaut, 2002), suggests 5 steps for music therapist to evaluate, how effective music is on stimulus: 1) reviewing theory, 2) surveying knowledge about neurological processing of music, 3) determining the relevance of particular responses to music therapy goals 4) creating a model of stimulus processing and clinical applications, and 5) illustrating the model through clinical examples.

Music therapists, as suggested by King in her closing statement, “should increase their knowledge and awareness of the distinctions between language and speech and modify [their evaluation] interventions accordingly” (King, 2007).

As a music therapist who fully supports the on-going research of music therapy in neurological settings to enhance practice, I found the contents of this article applicable to my own professional life in the field of music and health.

“Examining the majority of songs familiar to music therapy clients reveals that the lyrics seldom represent concrete, functional concepts; instead, metaphor and imagery predominate. This means that a client who has developed aphasia cannot use songs to recover the meaning of words. For example, a client with aphasia may be able to sing, “ If I Had a Hammer” or “Yes, I Have No Bananas, “ but may not make any connection between those words and the tool or the fruit. Further, neither of those songs, nor most others that are well known to our older clients, contain references to the concepts those clients might need to express, such as rest, the presence of pain, or the need to use the bathroom.

The previous quote exemplifies, in my opinion, the practice of numerous music therapists who lack familiarity and knowledge of substantive treatments in the field of neurological music therapy. As stated above, many activities utilized in music therapy have not been designed to be diagnosis specific, meaning they have low therapeutic value, as the content of the treatment has not been thoroughly assessed for the benefits.

Furthermore, I believe that an injustice is rendered to the practice of music therapy, when the practitioners themselves fail to present a comprehensive knowledge of the current research in the field. Without sound research in the area, neurological music therapy fails to gain validity among contemporaries.

Functional neuroanatomical networks associated with expertise in motor imagery

Guillot, A., Collet, C., Nguyen, V.A., Malouin, F., Richards, C., & Doyon, J. (2008). Functional neuroanatomical networks associated with expertise in motor imagery ability. NeuroImage, 41, 1471-1783. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from Scholars Portal Journals <>

Guillot et al. defined motor imagery (MI) as “a dynamic state during which a subject simulates an action mentally without any body movement”. They noted that MI and motor performance share the same neural networks and that MI has even been found to produce the same neuroplastic changes as physical practice, pointing to the potential benefits of MI. However, they believed that these benefits are dependent on imagery ability, which varies among individuals. Therefore, in a study that was claimed to be the first of its kind, Guillot et al. attempted to find the functional neuroanatomical networks associated with MI expertise.

First, they had to conduct a series of pre-selection tests on 50 participants to distinguish those who could reach a high level of MI performance (“good imagers”) from those who were having trouble with MI (“poor imagers”). The participants were required to perform and imagine three motor actions, during which their autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses (as measured by skin resistance) and timings were recorded. Then, they had to rate their own imagery vividness and complete the revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R) as well. By combining all these measures, a global imagery score was calculated for each participant.

Based on the global imagery score, the researchers selected 28 out of the 50 participants to take part in the fMRI experiment. The 28 participants were made up of 13 good imagers and 15 poor imagers (as determined by the global imagery score). The selected participants were asked to learn a finger sequence task and they were scanned during: 1. The physical execution of this task on a four-key keyboard that recorded their accuracy and timing, 2. The imagining of the task without any movement (MI), and 3. Perceptual control condition (simply remaining motionless).

Guillot et al. found that poor imagers generally showed more widely-distributed activations than good imagers during both MI and physical execution of the task. The good imagers showed increased bilateral activations in the superior parietal lobule and the lateral premotor cortex, as well as in the left cingulated cortex, the right inferior parietal lobule and the right inferior prefrontal region. Poor imagers showed exclusive activation of the posterior cingulated and orbito-frontal cortices, as well as both the anterior and posterior cerebellar hemispheres.

Thus, the researchers pointed out that, compared to skilled imagers, poor imagers not only needed to recruit the cortico-striatal system, but also to compensate with the cortico-cerebellar system during MI of sequential movements. Since much evidence points to the fact that the cerebellum is no longer necessary when a movement sequence is well-learned, the researchers speculated that good imagers may have a more efficient recruitment of movement engrams.

Even though this study does not directly concern music, I still think that it is highly relevant for musicians, as MI has been noted to be the “main component of mental rehearsal” (Bangert, 2006, p. 175).

If MI can produce the same neuroplastic changes as physical practice, then mental rehearsal seems to hold great promise for performers. And if the benefits of MI simply depend on MI ability, then the logical step toward maximizing these benefits would be to try to improve one’s MI ability. The implication for performers is therefore clear: effective mental rehearsal depends on the development of good imagery ability, and especially MI ability.

But it still amazes me that MI ability could actually be measured at all. Furthermore, I marvel at the complexity of this study – at the combined use of objective neurophysiological techniques and more subjective questionnaire-based testing to differentiate good imagers from poor imagers before conducting the fMRI experiment to determine the neural networks associated with MI expertise.

And now that the result reveals that good and poor imagers indeed show different patterns of brain activations, the more important question that arises is: Would it be possible for poor imagers to receive feedback through real-time fMRI and learn to change their pattern of activations to more closely resemble that of good imagers?

More fundamentally, however, I am curious about why imagery ability should vary among individuals. Given the functional equivalence between imagery and real perception and action, could it be that good imagers are also more “perceptive” and kinesthetically aware in their everyday life and, consequently, can create more vivid and accurate mental representations? This makes sense, considering the finding that poor imagers show more widely-distributed activations than good imagers during the physical execution of the finger sequence task as well as during MI.

Or maybe there is also a genetic component to imagery ability?

It is important to note that none of the participants in the fMRI experiment were musicians or professional typists, as the researchers wanted to “eliminate subjects with pre-existing skills requiring highly coordinated finger dexterities”. So I suppose that, in the future, it would be interesting to study precisely this group of people in order to see how the MI ability of such highly skilled individuals compares with the designated good and poor imagers.

Bangert, M. (2006). Brain activation during piano playing. In E. Altenmüller, M. Wiesendanger, & J. Kesselring (Eds.), Music, motor control and the brain. (pp. 173-184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Music Training Causes Changes in the Brain – Catherine Applefeld Olson, Teaching Music, April 2010


In a recent study, researchers in Massachusetts found that changers are more pronounced in children who practice music more frequently. These changes did not correlate with improved performance in mathematics, spatial skills, or phonological ability. The study consisted of comparing two groups of six and seven year olds; one with musical training and one without. After three months the children who received musical instruction showed improvements in the following areas: the motor area, the corpus callosum, and the right primary auditory region.

Additionally, the changes became more pronounced over time and the musically trained students also performed better on motor sequencing tests involving patterning. The study did not detect any difference in performance in select academic areas between the two groups. The author makes a point that although the correlation between arts and other subjects is important, it does not justify music education. The arts are crucial in themselves, not because there may be a positive relationship between them and success in mathematical patterning.


What I liked most about this article was the author’s stance on arts education advocacy. Too often we see music educators advocating for their program because musical training may benefit other subject areas (hence the “music makes you smarter” theory). But we need to support arts education as it’s own entity and promote the benefits on its own.

I think we should promote aesthetic education and the social connections inherent in music making while supporting these claims with scientific evidence. If we are going to make the claim that there is a positive correlation between playing music and success in math, then we must ensure that music stands out on its own instead of being dependent on another subject area.