Article Figures & Data
Figures
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Total sample Main group mean age at MTP1: 8.6 years ± 9 months AD(H)D group mean age at MTP1: 8.9 years ± 8 months n = 111 (54 males, 57 females) n = 21 (all males) Longitudinal MRI sample n = 102 (49 males, 53 females) n = 21 Longitudinal MEG sample n = 102 (51 males, 51 females) n = 20 Type of musical training Private + JeKi Private only JeKi only None Private + JeKi Private only JeKi only None Number of subjects 38 38 16 19 5 4 2 10 Age in months at MTP1 (years; months) 104.1 ± 8.5 101.8 ± 10.7 104.4 ± 8.5 97.8 ± 7.1 100.6 ± 4.7 108 ± 6.9 116 ± 5.6 103.9 ± 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 ± 12.9 71.8 ± 14.7 95.3 ± 8.6 94.6 ± 4.7 90 ± 18.5 92 ± 5.7 (7; 2) (6; 0) (7; 11) (7; 11) (7; 6) (7; 8) Private IMP at MTP1 1.9 ± 2.8 5.8 ± 5.6 0.35 ± 0.2 2.25 ± 2.6 JeKi IMP at MTP1 0.7 ± 1.3 0.4 ± 0.5 0.05 ± 0.1 1 ± 0 (Total) IMP at MTP1 2.6 ± 3.5 5.8 ± 5.6 0.4 ± 0.5 0.4 ± 0.3 2.25 ± 2.6 1 ± 0 Private IMP at MTP2 2.5 ± 3.0 8.3 ± 6.5 1.0 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 4.0 JeKi IMP at MTP2 1.7 ± 1.8 1.4 ± 0.8 0.6 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.01 (Total) IMP at MTP2 4.2 ± 4.2 8.3 ± 6.5 1.4 ± 0.8 1.6 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 4.0 1.5 ± 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.
MTP LPs (n = 50; 29 males, 21 females) HPs (n = 52; 20 males, 32 females) AD(H)D (n = 21; all males) Significance of MTP Significance of group Post hoc comparisons for group Significance of group for boys only HG (R) volume (mm3) 1
23685 ± 156
3692 ± 1525173 ± 153
5188 ± 1493727 ± 241
3726 ± 234n.s. F(2,120) = 28.2; p = 8.9 × 10−11; partial η2 = 0.32 LP versus HP, p = 1.3 × 10−9; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 4.8 × 10−6 F(2,67) = 11.3; p = 6.1 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.25 HG (L) volume (mm3) 1
24193 ± 190
4193 ± 1935377 ± 186
5409 ± 1903998 ± 293
3937 ± 298n.s. F(2,120) = 13.5; p = 5 × 10−6; partial η2 = 0.18 LP versus HP, p = 1.2 × 10−4; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 5.3 × 10−5 F(2,67) = 9.2; p = 2.9 × 10−4; partial η2 = 0.22 PT (R) volume (mm3) 1
23453 ± 181
3488 ± 1712203 ± 177
2163 ± 1684359 ± 279
4344 ± 265n.s. F(2,120) = 27.3; p = 2 × 10−10; partial η2 = 0.31 LP versus HP, p = 4 × 10−6; LP versus AD(H)D, p= 0.026; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 3.5 × 10−9 F(2,67) = 8.8; p = 4.1 × 10−4; partial η2 = 0.21 PT (L) volume (mm3) 1
24188 ± 221
4207 ± 2133475 ± 216
3429 ± 2096304 ± 341
6445 ± 398n.s. F(2,120) = 27.5; p = 2 × 10−10; partial η2= 0.31 LP versus HP, n.s.; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.5 × 10−6; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.6 × 10−10 F(2,67) = 10.5; p = 1 × 10−4; partial η2= 0.24 HG/PT (R) 1
21.40 ± 0.18
1.37 ± 0.183.00 ± 1.18
3.00 ± 1.180.98 ± 0.28
0.96 ± 0.28n.s. F(2,120) = 30; p = 2.8 × 10−11; partial η2= 0.33 LP versus HP, p = 7.6 × 10−8; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 5.3 × 10−11 F(2,67) = 14.6; p = 5.5 × 10−6; partial η2= 0.3 HG/PT (L) 1
21.15 ± 0.15
1.13 ± 0.152.05 ± 0.15
2.05 ± 0.150.68 ± 0.23
0.62 ± 0.23n.s. F(2,120) = 16.9; p = 3.3 × 10−7; partial η2 = 0.22 LP 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 × 10−5 F(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.
MTP LPs (n = 49; 29 males, 20 females) HPs (n = 53; 22 males, 31 females) AD(H)D (n = 20; all males) Significance of MTP Significance of group Post hoc comparisons of group Significance of group for boys only P1 (R) amplitude (nAm) 1
224.4 ± 1.5
31.2 ± 1.634.6 ± 1.4
34.5 ± 1.519 ± 2.3
29.1 ± 2.5n.s. F(2,119) = 28.6; p = 7.3 × 10−11; partial η2 = 0.32 LP versus HP, p = 0.0003; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 7.8 × 10−6 F(2,119) = 17.1; p = 9.8 × 10−7; partial η2 = 0.33 P1 (L) amplitude (nAm) 1
225.6 ± 1.4
32.6 ± 1.636.9 ± 1.3
36.8 ± 1.619.4 ± 2.2
28.6 ± 2.5n.s. F(2,119) = 3.6; p = 0.032; partial η2 = 0.06 LP versus HP, n.s.; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.05 n.s. P1 (R) latency (ms) 1
291 ± 2
87 ± 189 ± 2
81 ± 182 ± 2
79 ± 2F(1,119) = 126.2; p = 2.1 × 10−20; partial η2 = 0.52 F(2,119) = 4.6; p = 0.012; partial η2 = 0.07 LP 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
296 ± 2
91 ± 292 ± 2
84 ± 2103 ± 3
100 ± 3F(1,119) = 81.2; p = 1 × 10−13; partial η2 = 0.41 F(2,119) = 10.2; p = 8 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.15 LP versus HP, p = 0.04; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.05; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 1.3 × 10−4 F(2,119) = 5.7; p = 0.005; partial η2 = 0.14 P1 (R) latency reduction (ms) 1–2 4.8 ± 0.7 8.5 ± 0.7 3.0 ± 1.1 F(2,119) = 12.2; p = 1.6 × 10−5; partial η2 = 0.17 LP versus HP, p = 8.6 × 10−4; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 2.1 × 10−4 F(2,119) = 4.2; p = 0.019; partial η2= 0.11 P1 (L) latency reduction (ms) 1–2 4.9 ± 0.9 8.1 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 1.4 F(2,119) = 5.9; p = 0.004; partial η2 = 0.09 LP versus HP, p = 0.031; LP versus AD(H)D, n.s.; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 0.014 n.s. Bilateral P1 asynchrony |R–L| (ms) 1
27.4 ± 0.9
6.9 ± 1.04.4 ± 0.9
3.9 ± 1.022.9 ± 1.4
22.2 ± 1.6n.s. F(2,119) = 61.5; p = 4.6 × 10−19; partial η2 = 0.51 LP versus HP, p= 0.016; LP versus AD(H)D, p = 8.4 × 10−6; HP versus AD(H)D, p = 6.4 × 10−7 F(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.
In this issue
