Scientific American article on music and the brain

October 28, 2004 at 07:15 AM · Wonderful article, Nick. I guess it's official, then, I'm a music addict.

October 28, 2004 at 07:29 AM · Cool Article,

Though the psychological jury is still out as to whether musicians necessarily have more neurons per se, than non musicians. I can almost certainly guarantee that the neural network for musicians would be more developed from having to make associations between auditory neural sections (temporal lobes), frontal lobes, memory and emotion related areas (limbic system). There would undoubtedly be greater neural pathways between the parts used for processing music with other sections relating to a persons memories, experiences, emotions etc.

This is one reason why I reckon it is mandatory that kids who are learning to be musicians have a "life" in addition to learning music. I feel particularly sorry for kids who are forced to play endlessly without having the chance to "be a kid"... that's a sure fire recipe (IMHO) for dry, technical and boring playing. If people are going to be great musicians, their brains have to be able to link the music their are hearing/playing with real life experiences and emotions.

As for violinists having more neurons for their pinkies.. that's quite true.. but not just their right hand pinkies, I would imagine that fingers on both hands would have more neurons dedicated to them..simply because of the fine motor control required in them. This won't necessarily imply that violinists have more neurons... but rather more neurons in the motor cortex of the brain would be dedicated to the fingers. This may come at the expense of neurons to controlling other parts of the body.. but probably not a noticable effect.

An interesting side fact is that they're discovering that people are starting to have a greater number of neurons being allocated to thumbs... which is largely due to the increase in text messaging from mobile/cell phones and the increase in computer games! (e.g. playstation).

October 28, 2004 at 11:04 AM · It helps in playing the violin, does it help with things in everyday stuff as well? Do we have quicker reaction times and stuff like that?

October 28, 2004 at 04:41 PM · Phil, the article quotes research saying violinists have more neuronal development related to the fingers of the left hand only (not the right); keyboardists have more development in the coordination between the two hemispheres of the brain.

And the article says that the increase in the volume of the auditory cortex in musicians is 130 percent more than in nonmusicians. I'm quoting the article now:

"The percentages of volume increase were linked to levels of musical training, suggesting that learning music proportionally increases the number of neurons that process it."

October 28, 2004 at 05:01 PM · Just to add, there's no question that learning any skill will increase neuronal pathways and activity. Even pumping gas if you do it for 8 hours a day.

I agree, kids should get to be kids, but it's funny how no one ever seems to tell kids who are doing 8 hours of sports a day to get a life. Is the life of an athlete more of a life than the life of a musician?

One-Sim,

I don't know about reaction time, but it's true musicians have useful skills like being able to tell what pitch the vacuum cleaner is. It's quite possible that studying violin affects reaction time at least in the left hand. And you get more able to process notes on a written page into motor signals.

Plus, I have read other research showing that kids who study music do better all around in all their academic subjects.

In general all signs point to the benefits of studying music to the brain. And listening to music is as good for your emotions as good food and some other things I can't mention without getting demerits. :)

October 28, 2004 at 10:55 PM · how would one explain my learning absolute pitch at age 13?

science hasnt proved this.

October 28, 2004 at 11:43 PM · Wow! What a great article! Now I can go brag to my non-musician friends that I have a auditory cortex about 130 percent larger than them :P

October 28, 2004 at 11:27 PM · Yeah valid points.. I'm not disagreeing with you, but rather though I am scrutinizing a lot of what the article says. (Although it's a good article for the most part). Neuroscientific theories and conclusions drawn from studies are always very shaky and debatable.

The "scientific American" after all is a secondary information source, and doesn't have the scientific validity of peer reviewed journals. (Though it is quite a good mag nontheless)

So In saying that, I'm a bit surprised that it said that violinist motor neuronal development was limited to certain fingers. I would argue from neuroscience theory that violinists would have increased developement in all fingers (some more than others). Simply because I would be willing to bet that violinists have better dexterity in all fingers than a non-musician (on average)... though the middle and ring fingers of the bowing hand would only have a marginal difference. If violinists didn't have increased neuronal activity in the bowing hand, then there would be no need to practice bowing technique.

My only issue with an interpretation that musicians have more neurons is that it is extremely hard to measure how many neurons a person actually has. Neuroscientists can only guess wild ballpark figures as to how many the average person has. That's why if any article states certain individuals have more neurons than others, I am automatically skeptical.

Though I do agree with the quote you gave.. I don't believe it suggests that musicians have more neurons, but rather more neurons are utilised for auditory tasks. In other words musos devote more of the neurons which they've already got, for musical tasks.. thus giving that 130% figure. BTW You can only calculate percentages like that from functional scanning techniques such as fMRI or EEG which don't really give neuron counts.

The only studies I'm aware of which show certain individuals having more neurons is in studies of subjects with "perfect/absolute pitch". These studies have shown that the grey matter layers of perfect pitch subjects are slightly thicker, thus implying they have more neurons. The jury is still out on this one though.

October 29, 2004 at 03:42 AM · Phil,

Just to clarify-

the article cites several different studies done over the last few years.

The auditory cortex was imaged in various ways (look at the article again) and the extrapolation was to neuronal processing.

The point of the article wasn't to say musican's brains are superior, but how are they different and what areas of the brain are affected by music.

About the violinist's hands--look closely at the article. Neuroscience theory or no, here's what they found:

Thomas Elbert, University of Konstanz in Germany and his colleagues "reported that the brain regions that receive sensory inputs from the second to fifth (index to pinkie) fingers in the left hand were significantly larger in violinists...In contrast they observed no enlargement in the areas of the cortex that handle inputs from the right hand which controls the bow."

October 29, 2004 at 05:40 AM · So if a perfect pitch person has more neurons, then I created some at a later age?

It has been a fact for a long time that neurons stop creation at a certain age, am I prolonging that growth??

October 29, 2004 at 06:19 AM · Hmmm I don't want to let this thread degrade into an argument. You do indeed examine your material well, Nick.

I'm aware that the article doesn't state that musos have more neurons, but some posts have (or seem to) have taken it to mean that musos do have more neurons. Just addressing that.... not trying to have a go at anyone.

Even though the article has cited a study showing no neuronal representation increase in the bowing hand, I must scrutinize and be skeptical of that study. I believe strongly that violinists need greater sensitivity and motor control in their bowing hand than non-musicians. Therefore it is only natural to expect that there would be a greater representation of the bowing hand in the somatosensory and motor cortexes. The result of that study goes against what we know about the functions of the somatosensory cortex. The only way I can justify that study is to assume that violinists don't have greater articulation in their bowing hand than most non musos. I do not believe in this assumption.

As for your question Ed,

It's one thing to have neurons, its another thing to use them. I'm not familiar with your learning history, but you may not have actually used (made the relevant dendritic connections) of the additional neurons in your temporal lobe until you were 13. The plasticity of the brain is very high in the childhood years. If in fact your brain did adjust itself to develop absolute pitch, perhaps you should let some people at a neuroscience research unit use you as a case study :) They'd be dying to find out if absolute pitch is innate (i.e. something you're born with) or if it is something someone can learn.

Mind you the study which showed the thicker grey matter in absolute pitch patients is only a correlational study... there will always be outliers, and the theory is still somewhat shaky.

As with most neuroscience topics, it's very difficult to draw any valid conclusions with the limitations permitted in research (e.g. ethics etc). So I suppose it's only natural that an article like this one is going face some minor criticism.

October 29, 2004 at 10:58 AM · There is an Institute in Philadelphia.'The Institute of Human Potential' I think its called which recuperates brain loss in braindamaged children (and adults) by using patterning.This is a series of repetetive exercises which are done almost none stop for the major part of the day.If you think of the technical bulk of a violinists study (especially Sevcik,Shradiek and scales) we are reinforcing these patterns continuously. The success of the Suzuki method is based on numerous repetitions of the same pattern.

October 29, 2004 at 11:01 PM · Phil,

I do know for a fact that the environment to learn it at an early age was present. I myself had heard of it around age 11 and had tried having people quizing me notes, but I could tell little difference. It was until www.prolobe.com that a person showed me a technique (i can talk about it if you are curious), and I was able to learn it easily. ex. The note "C" because most songs in C major ended with that familiar C C B C ending, and it stuck out for me. It was just a matter of unlocking all the other notes.

I have introduced the theory on how a person listens to music, and I think my being into the group that hears music in the right key might have something that allowed me to learn it in that manner.

I do make for an interesting test subject, as my case is a bit unusual.

October 29, 2004 at 11:30 PM · Listen to too much music for too long and your brain can overload (try leaving your headphones on overnight); that's a lot of activity your brain has to undergo. I don't know if it makes you smarter or gives you a headache.