Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Size and Synchronization of Auditory Cortex Promotes Musical, Literacy, and Attentional Skills in Children

Annemarie Seither-Preisler, Richard Parncutt and Peter Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 13 August 2014, 34 (33) 10937-10949; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5315-13.2014
Annemarie Seither-Preisler
1Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience Section, Institute of Psychology and
2Centre for Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Annemarie Seither-Preisler
Richard Parncutt
2Centre for Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Schneider
3Department of Neuroradiology and Department of Neurology, Section of Biomagnetism, University of Heidelberg Medical School, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Intensity of musical activity. A, Distribution of IMP for AD(H)D children (A) and for LPs and HPs. The latter were defined by a cutoff value at the saddle point (asterisk at IMP = 2.5). B, Left, IMP group means (LP, HP, A); right, IMP of JeKi participants (J): on average, half of the practicing time was devoted to the JeKi program (dark red part) and the other half to extracurricular musical lessons (bright red part). C, Correlation of IMMA score and IMP at the second MTP.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Individual morphology and relative gray matter volume of HG and PT. A, 3D reconstruction of an individual AC. HGs and its duplications are colored in blue (left hemisphere) and red (right hemisphere). B, A top view of 12 exemplary individual ACs reveals the characteristic large variability in size, gyrification, and hemispheric asymmetry of HG and PT. C, Bar graphs showing the gray matter (GM) volumes of HG, PT, and HG/PT ratio in both hemispheres for the three groups. L, Left; R, right.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Localization, time course, and bilateral asynchrony of auditory-evoked P1 source activity in response to the sounds of various musical instruments and artificial tones. A, The primary P1 responses (yellow circles) are projected onto the group-averaged surface meshes; P1 sources localized robustly on HG, except for AD(H)D children in the left hemisphere. Mean gray matter ratios HG/PT are indicated by numbers. L, Left; R, right. B, Time courses of the averaged source waveforms for the right (red curve; RH) and left (blue curve; LH) hemisphere. Indicated P1 and N1 latencies refer to peak level. Mean latency differences between the two hemispheres are displayed in a clockwise manner. HPs demonstrate a remarkable left–right synchronization of the primary P1. Conversely, LPs show a slight bilateral P1 asynchrony; for AD(H)D children, the asynchrony is more pronounced (blue shaded area).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Anatomical and functional markers of musicality and AD(H)D. A, Correlation of right hemispheric gray matter (GM) ratio of HG/PT and musical practicing index. B, Percentage of GM changes in HG between the first and second MRI MTP as a function of musical practice. C, Correlation between the HG/PT ratios at both MTPs. D, Correlation of functional and anatomical asymmetries. The P1 synchrony between the right and left hemisphere increases significantly with the GM ratio HG/PT, indicating that the strong asynchrony observed in AD(H)D children is related to a relative dominance of the PT. E, Correlation between P1 dipole amplitude and HG/PT ratio in the right hemisphere. F–I, Correlations of AD(H)D symptom strength (DCL-HKS score in DISYPS) and IMMA score with structural and functional parameters, respectively. Because of the slightly skewed distribution of “GM ratio HG/PT LH,” this variable was inversely transformed (1/value) for the correlational analysis in D and F. LH, Left hemisphere; RH, right hemisphere.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Reading and literacy skills. Differences between LPs (yellow) and HPs (blue) with regard to five indicators of literacy at the first (1) and second (2) MTP. A value of 50 corresponds to the mean of the age-related norm. Reading skills refer to the reading quotient (RQ/2) obtained by the German test SLS. Spelling skills refer to the T values for three spelling strategies (SP-A, alphabetic; SP-O, orthographic; SP-M, morphematic) and the number of correctly spelled difficult word spots (SP-G, grapheme hits) for the German test HSP. Error bars indicate SEM.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Neurocognitive model of competence development. The model describes the interaction between dispositional factors (potential profile, bottom), natural maturation (right vertical path), and training-induced plasticity (left vertical path). Pedagogic interventions (left) may affect learning-induced plasticity at different levels, thereby contributing to the manifestation of the individual competence profile (top). In the case of music processing, AC morphology (bottom right) and the source waveforms of the auditory-evoked fields (top left) represent dispositional and training-induced factors, respectively.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Description of participants

    Total sampleMain group mean age at MTP1: 8.6 years ± 9 monthsAD(H)D group mean age at MTP1: 8.9 years ± 8 months
    n = 111 (54 males, 57 females)n = 21 (all males)
    Longitudinal MRI samplen = 102 (49 males, 53 females)n = 21
    Longitudinal MEG samplen = 102 (51 males, 51 females)n = 20
    Type of musical trainingPrivate + JeKiPrivate onlyJeKi onlyNonePrivate + JeKiPrivate onlyJeKi onlyNone
    Number of subjects3838161954210
    Age in months at MTP1 (years; months)104.1 ± 8.5101.8 ± 10.7104.4 ± 8.597.8 ± 7.1100.6 ± 4.7108 ± 6.9116 ± 5.6103.9 ± 8.5
        (8; 8)(8; 6)(8; 8)(8; 2)(8; 5)(9; 0)(9; 8)(8; 8)
    Musical starting age (years; months)85.5 ± 12.971.8 ± 14.795.3 ± 8.694.6 ± 4.790 ± 18.592 ± 5.7
        (7; 2)(6; 0)(7; 11)(7; 11)(7; 6)(7; 8)
    Private IMP at MTP11.9 ± 2.85.8 ± 5.60.35 ± 0.22.25 ± 2.6
    JeKi IMP at MTP10.7 ± 1.30.4 ± 0.50.05 ± 0.11 ± 0
    (Total) IMP at MTP12.6 ± 3.55.8 ± 5.60.4 ± 0.50.4 ± 0.32.25 ± 2.61 ± 0
    Private IMP at MTP22.5 ± 3.08.3 ± 6.51.0 ± 0.84.5 ± 4.0
    JeKi IMP at MTP21.7 ± 1.81.4 ± 0.80.6 ± 0.11.5 ± 0.01
    (Total) IMP at MTP24.2 ± 4.28.3 ± 6.51.4 ± 0.81.6 ± 0.84.5 ± 4.01.5 ± 0.01
    • Both the main group and the AD(H)D group included children with and without musical experience but in different proportions. The children were musically trained in extracurricular private lessons, the JeKi program offered at school, or both. IMPs are separately listed for the JeKi-related and private training at MTP1 and MTP2. If not stated otherwise in the text, IMP is the total accumulated practice (JeKi + private) at MTP2. All means and SDs are based on the total sample and not on the slightly reduced samples of the longitudinal MRI and MEG analyses.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    ANOVA results for the MRI-based morphology of AC

    MTPLPs (n = 50; 29 males, 21 females)HPs (n = 52; 20 males, 32 females)AD(H)D (n = 21; all males)Significance of MTPSignificance of groupPost hoc comparisons for groupSignificance of group for boys only
    HG (R) volume (mm3)1
    2
    3685 ± 156
    3692 ± 152
    5173 ± 153
    5188 ± 149
    3727 ± 241
    3726 ± 234
    n.s.F(2,120) = 28.2; p = 8.9 × 10−11; partial η2 = 0.32LP versus HP, p = 1.3 × 10−9; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 4.8 × 10−6F(2,67) = 11.3; p = 6.1 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.25
    HG (L) volume (mm3)1
    2
    4193 ± 190
    4193 ± 193
    5377 ± 186
    5409 ± 190
    3998 ± 293
    3937 ± 298
    n.s.F(2,120) = 13.5; p = 5 × 10−6; partial η2 = 0.18LP versus HP, p = 1.2 × 10−4; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 5.3 × 10−5F(2,67) = 9.2; p = 2.9 × 10−4; partial η2 = 0.22
    PT (R) volume (mm3)1
    2
    3453 ± 181
    3488 ± 171
    2203 ± 177
    2163 ± 168
    4359 ± 279
    4344 ± 265
    n.s.F(2,120) = 27.3; p = 2 × 10−10; partial η2 = 0.31LP versus HP, p = 4 × 10−6; LP versus AD(H)D, p= 0.026; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 3.5 × 10−9F(2,67) = 8.8; p = 4.1 × 10−4; partial η2 = 0.21
    PT (L) volume (mm3)1
    2
    4188 ± 221
    4207 ± 213
    3475 ± 216
    3429 ± 209
    6304 ± 341
    6445 ± 398
    n.s.F(2,120) = 27.5; p = 2 × 10−10; partial η2= 0.31LP versus HP, n.s.; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.5 × 10−6; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.6 × 10−10F(2,67) = 10.5; p = 1 × 10−4; partial η2= 0.24
    HG/PT (R)1
    2
    1.40 ± 0.18
    1.37 ± 0.18
    3.00 ± 1.18
    3.00 ± 1.18
    0.98 ± 0.28
    0.96 ± 0.28
    n.s.F(2,120) = 30; p = 2.8 × 10−11; partial η2= 0.33LP versus HP, p = 7.6 × 10−8; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 5.3 × 10−11F(2,67) = 14.6; p = 5.5 × 10−6; partial η2= 0.3
    HG/PT (L)1
    2
    1.15 ± 0.15
    1.13 ± 0.15
    2.05 ± 0.15
    2.05 ± 0.15
    0.68 ± 0.23
    0.62 ± 0.23
    n.s.F(2,120) = 16.9; p = 3.3 × 10−7; partial η2 = 0.22LP versus HP, p = 3.3 × 10−4; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 2.4 × 10−5; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 2.4 × 10−5F(2,67) = 7.5; p = 0.001; partial η2 = 0.18
    • ANOVA group comparisons for MRI-based gray matter volumes of HG, PT, and HG/PT ratio in the right (R) and left (L) hemisphere for both MTPs. Morphometric values: mean ± SEM (cubic millimeters). To test whether the unequal gender distributions in the three groups [all AD(H)D children were male] may be responsible for some of the observed effects, the right column shows the corresponding results for boys only.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    ANOVA results for the MEG-based auditory-evoked P1 response

    MTPLPs (n = 49; 29 males, 20 females)HPs (n = 53; 22 males, 31 females)AD(H)D (n = 20; all males)Significance of MTPSignificance of groupPost hoc comparisons of groupSignificance of group for boys only
    P1 (R) amplitude (nAm)1
    2
    24.4 ± 1.5
    31.2 ± 1.6
    34.6 ± 1.4
    34.5 ± 1.5
    19 ± 2.3
    29.1 ± 2.5
    n.s.F(2,119) = 28.6; p = 7.3 × 10−11; partial η2 = 0.32LP versus HP, p = 0.0003; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 7.8 × 10−6F(2,119) = 17.1; p = 9.8 × 10−7; partial η2 = 0.33
    P1 (L) amplitude (nAm)1
    2
    25.6 ± 1.4
    32.6 ± 1.6
    36.9 ± 1.3
    36.8 ± 1.6
    19.4 ± 2.2
    28.6 ± 2.5
    n.s.F(2,119) = 3.6; p = 0.032; partial η2 = 0.06LP versus HP, n.s.; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.05n.s.
    P1 (R) latency (ms)1
    2
    91 ± 2
    87 ± 1
    89 ± 2
    81 ± 1
    82 ± 2
    79 ± 2
    F(1,119) = 126.2; p = 2.1 × 10−20; partial η2 = 0.52F(2,119) = 4.6; p = 0.012; partial η2 = 0.07LP versus HP, n.s.; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.016; HP versus AD(H)D, n.s.F(2,119) = 4.1; p = 0.02; partial η2 = 0.11
    P1 (L) latency (ms)1
    2
    96 ± 2
    91 ± 2
    92 ± 2
    84 ± 2
    103 ± 3
    100 ± 3
    F(1,119) = 81.2; p = 1 × 10−13; partial η2 = 0.41F(2,119) = 10.2; p = 8 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.15LP versus HP, p = 0.04; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.05; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.3 × 10−4F(2,119) = 5.7; p = 0.005; partial η2 = 0.14
    P1 (R) latency reduction (ms)1–24.8 ± 0.78.5 ± 0.73.0 ± 1.1F(2,119) = 12.2; p = 1.6 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.17LP versus HP, p = 8.6 × 10−4; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 2.1 × 10−4F(2,119) = 4.2; p = 0.019; partial η2= 0.11
    P1 (L) latency reduction (ms)1–24.9 ± 0.98.1 ± 0.83.4 ± 1.4F(2,119) = 5.9; p = 0.004; partial η2 = 0.09LP versus HP, p = 0.031; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.014n.s.
    Bilateral P1 asynchrony |R–L| (ms)1
    2
    7.4 ± 0.9
    6.9 ± 1.0
    4.4 ± 0.9
    3.9 ± 1.0
    22.9 ± 1.4
    22.2 ± 1.6
    n.s.F(2,119) = 61.5; p = 4.6 × 10−19; partial η2 = 0.51LP versus HP, p= 0.016; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 8.4 × 10−6; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 6.4 × 10−7F(2,119) = 31.7; p = 1.9 × 10−10; partial η2 = 0.48
    • ANOVA group comparisons for MEG-based auditory-evoked P1. Right (R) and left (L) hemispheric amplitudes, latencies, and bilateral asynchronies at both MTPs and P1 latency reduction over time. P1 amplitude (nanoamperemeter; nAm) and latency (ms): Peak value and time point of the primary response arising from HG; Bilateral P1 asynchrony: P1 latency difference |R-L|; mean ± SEM. To test whether the unequal gender distributions in the three groups [all AD(H)D children were male] may be responsible for some of the observed effects, the right column shows the corresponding results for boys only.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 34 (33)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 34, Issue 33
13 Aug 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Size and Synchronization of Auditory Cortex Promotes Musical, Literacy, and Attentional Skills in Children
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Size and Synchronization of Auditory Cortex Promotes Musical, Literacy, and Attentional Skills in Children
Annemarie Seither-Preisler, Richard Parncutt, Peter Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 13 August 2014, 34 (33) 10937-10949; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5315-13.2014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Size and Synchronization of Auditory Cortex Promotes Musical, Literacy, and Attentional Skills in Children
Annemarie Seither-Preisler, Richard Parncutt, Peter Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 13 August 2014, 34 (33) 10937-10949; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5315-13.2014
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • auditory cortex
  • auditory evoked responses
  • magnetencephalography
  • morphometry
  • musical aptitude
  • musical learning
  • ADHD

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Brain functional connectivity mapping of behavioral flexibility in rhesus monkeys
  • Accumulation System: Distributed Neural Substrates of Perceptual Decision Making Revealed by fMRI Deconvolution
  • Recruitment of control and representational components of the semantic system during successful and unsuccessful access to complex factual knowledge
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.