attention

Why does music training increase intelligence?

We know that music training causes intelligence to increase, but why? In this post I 1) propose a new theory, and 2) falsify it immediately. Given that this particular combination of activities is unpublishable in any academic journal, I invite you to read the whole story here (in under 500 words).

1) Proposing the ISAML

Incredible but true, music lessons improve the one thing that determines why people who are good on one task tend to be better on another task as well: IQ (Schellenberg, 2004; Kaviani et al., 2013; see coverage in previous blog post). Curiously, I have never seen an explanation for why music training would benefit intelligence.

I propose the Improved Sustained Attention through Music Lessons hypothesis (ISAML). The ISAML hypothesis claims that all tasks related to intelligence are dependent to some degree on people attending to them continuously. This ability is called sustained attention. A lapse of attention, caused by insufficient sustained attention, leads to suboptimal answers on IQ tests. Given that music is related to the structuring of attention (Boltz & Jones, 1989) and removes attentional ‘gaps’ (Olivers & Nieuwenhuis, 2005; see coverage in previous blog post), music training might help in attentional control and, thus, in increasing sustained attention. This in turn might have a positive impact on intelligence, see boxes and arrows in Figure 1.

music_training_IQ_link

Figure 1. The Improved Sustained Attention through Music Lessons hypothesis (ISAML) in a nutshell. Arrows represent positive associations.

The ISAML does not predict that intelligence is the same as sustained attention. Instead, it predicts that:

a) music training increases sustained attention

b) sustained attention is associated with intelligence

c) music training increases intelligence

2) Evaluating the ISAML

Prediction c is already supported, see above. Does anyone know something about prediction b? Here, I shall evaluate prediction a: does music training increase sustained attention? So far, the evidence looks inconclusive (Carey et al., 2015). Therefore, I will turn to a data set of my own which I gathered in a project together with Suzanne R. Jongman (Kunert & Jongman, in press).

We used a standard test of sustained attention: the digit discrimination test (Jongman et al., 2015). Participants had the mind-boggingly boring task of clicking a button every time they saw a zero while watching one single digit after another on the screen for ten minutes. A low sustained attention ability is thought to be reflected by worse performance (higher reaction time to the digit zero) at the end of the testing session compared to the beginning, or by overall high reaction times.

Unfortunately for the ISAML, it turns out that there is absolutely no relation between musical training and sustained attention. As you can see in Figure 2A, the reaction time (logged) decrement between the first and last half of reactions to zeroes is not related to musical training years [Pearson r = .03, N = 362, p = .61, 95% CI = [-.076; .129], JZS BF01 with default prior = 7.59; Spearman rho = .05]. Same for mean reaction time (logged), see Figure 2B [Pearson r = .02, N = 362, p = .74, 95% CI = [-0.861; 0.120], JZS BF01 = 8.181; Spearman rho = 0.03].

fig-2

Figure 2. The correlation between two different measures of sustained attention (vertical axes) and musical training (horizontal axes) in a sample of 362 participants. High values on vertical axes represent low sustained attention, i.e. the ISAML predicts a negative correlation coefficient. Neither correlation is statistically significant. Light grey robust regression lines show an iterated least squares regression which reduces the influence of unusual data points.

3) Conclusion

Why on earth is musical training related to IQ increases? I have no idea. The ISAML is not a good account for the intelligence boost provided by music lessons.

— — —

Carey, D., Rosen, S., Krishnan, S., Pearce, M., Shepherd, A., Aydelott, J., & Dick, F. (2015). Generality and specificity in the effects of musical expertise on perception and cognition Cognition, 137, 81-105 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.005

Jongman, S., Meyer, A., & Roelofs, A. (2015). The Role of Sustained Attention in the Production of Conjoined Noun Phrases: An Individual Differences Study PLOS ONE, 10 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137557

Jones, M., & Boltz, M. (1989). Dynamic attending and responses to time. Psychological Review, 96 (3), 459-491 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.96.3.459

Kaviani, H., Mirbaha, H., Pournaseh, M., & Sagan, O. (2013). Can music lessons increase the performance of preschool children in IQ tests? Cognitive Processing, 15 (1), 77-84 DOI: 10.1007/s10339-013-0574-0

Kunert R, & Jongman SR (2017). Entrainment to an auditory signal: Is attention involved? Journal of experimental psychology. General, 146 (1), 77-88 PMID: 28054814

Olivers, C., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The Beneficial Effect of Concurrent Task-Irrelevant Mental Activity on Temporal Attention Psychological Science, 16 (4), 265-269 DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01526.x

Glenn Schellenberg, E. (2004). Music Lessons Enhance IQ Psychological Science, 15 (8), 511-514 DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x

— — —

Advertisements

The curious effect of a musical rhythm on us

Do you know the feeling of a musical piece moving you? What is this feeling? One common answer by psychological researchers is that what you feel is your attention moving in sync with the music. In a new paper I show that this explanation is mistaken.

Watch the start of the following video and observe carefully what is happening in the first minute or so (you may stop it after that).

Noticed something? Nearly everyone in the audience moved to the rhythm, clapping, moving the head etc. And you? Did you move? I guess not. You probably looked carefully at what people were doing instead. Your reaction illustrates nicely how musical rhythms affect people according to psychological researchers. One very influential theory claims that your attention moves up and down in sync with the rhythm. It treats the rhythm like you treated it. It simply ignores the fact that most people love moving to the rhythm.

The theory: a rhythm moves your attention

Sometimes we have gaps of attention. Sometimes we manage to concentrate really well for a brief moment. A very influential theory, which has been supported in various experiments, claims that these fluctuations in attention are synced to the rhythm when hearing music. Attention is up at rhythmically salient moments, e.g., the first beat in each bar. And attention is down during rhythmically unimportant moments, e.g., off-beat moments.

This makes intuitive sense. Important tones, e.g., those determining the harmonic key of a music piece, tend to occur at rhythmically salient moments. Looking at language rhythm reveals a similar picture. Stressed syllables are important for understanding language and signal moments of rhythmic salience. It makes sense to attend well during moments which include important information.

The test: faster decisions and better learning?

I, together with Suzanne Jongman, asked whether attention really is up at rhythmically salient moments. If so, people should make decisions faster when a background rhythm has a moment of rhythmic importance. As if people briefly concentrated better at that moment. This is indeed what we found. People are faster at judging whether a few letters on the screen are a real word or not, if the letters are shown near a salient moment of a background rhythm, compared to another moment.

However, we went further. People should also learn new words better if they are shown near a rhythmically salient moment. This turned out not to be the case. Whether people have to memorise a new word at a moment when their attention is allegedly up or down (according to a background rhythm) does not matter. Learning is just as good.

What is more, even those people who react really strongly to the background rhythm in terms of speeding up a decision at a rhythmically salient moment (red square in Figure below), even those people do not learn new words better at the same time as they speed up.

It’s as if the speed-up of decisions is unrelated to the learning of new words. That’s weird because both tasks are known to be affected by attention. This makes us doubt that a rhythm affects attention. What could it affect instead?

fig5e_blog

Figure 1. Every dot is one of 60 participants. How much a background rhythm sped up responses is shown horizontally. How much the same rhythm, at the same time, facilitated pseudoword memorisation is shown on the vertical axis. The red square singles out the people who were most affected by the rhythm in terms of their decision speed. Notice that, at the same time, their learning is unaffected by the rhythm.

The conclusion: a rhythm does not move your attention, it moves your muscles

To our own surprise, a musical rhythm appears not to affect how your attention moves up and down, when your attentional lapses happen, or when you can concentrate well. Instead, it simply appears to affect how fast you can press a button, e.g., when indicating a decision whether a few letters form a word or not.

Thinking back to the video at the start, I guess this just means that people love moving to the rhythm because the urge to do so is a direct consequence of understanding a rhythm. Somewhere in the auditory and motor parts of the brain, rhythm processing happens. However, this has nothing to do with attention. This is why learning a new word shown on the screen – a task without an auditory or motor component – is not affected by a background rhythm.

The paper: the high point of my career

You may read all of this yourself in the paper (here). I will have to admit that in many ways this paper is how I like to see science done and, so, I will shamelessly tell you of its merits. The paper is not too long (7,500 words) but includes no less than 4 experiments with no less than 60 participants each. Each experiment tests the research question individually. However, the experiments build on each other in such a way that their combination makes the overall paper stronger than any experiment individually ever could.

In terms of analyses, we put in everything we could think of. All analyses are Bayesian (subjective Bayes factor) and frequentist (p-values). We report hypothesis testing analyses (Bayes factor, p-values) and parameter estimation analyses (effect sizes, Confidence intervals, Credible intervals). If you can think of yet another analysis, go for it. We publish the raw data and analysis code alongside the article.

The most important reason why this paper represents my favoured approach to science, though, is because it actually tests a theory. A theory I and my co-author truly believed in. A theory with a more than 30-year history. With a varied supporting literature. With a computational model implementation. With more than 800 citations for two key papers. With, in short, everything you could wish to see in a good theory.

And we falsified it! Instead of thinking of the learning task as ‘insensitive’ or as ‘a failed experiment’, we dug deeper and couldn’t help but concluding that the attention theory of rhythm perception is probably wrong. We actually learned something from our data!

PS: no-one is perfect and neither is this paper. I wish we had pre-registered at least one of the experiments. I also wish the paper was open access (see a free copy here). There is room for improvement, as always.

— — —
Kunert R, & Jongman SR (2017). Entrainment to an auditory signal: Is attention involved? Journal of experimental psychology. General, 146 (1), 77-88 PMID: 28054814

How language changes the way you hear music

In a new paper I, together with Roel Willems and Peter Hagoort, show that music and language are tightly coupled in the brain. Get the gist in a 180 second youtube clip and then try out what my participants did.

The task my participants had to do might sound very abstract to you, so let me make it concrete. Listen to these two music pieces and tell me which one sounds ‘finished’:

I bet you thought the second one ended a bit in an odd way. How do you know? You use your implicit knowledge of harmonic relations in Western music for such a ‘finished judgement’. All we did in the paper was to see whether an aspect of language grammar (syntax) can influence your ability to hear these harmonic relations, as revealed by ‘finished judgements’. The music pieces we used for this sounded very similar to what you just heard:

It turns out that reading syntactically difficult sentences while hearing the music reduced the feeling that music pieces like this did actually end well. This indicated that processing language syntax draws on brain resources which are also responsible for music harmony.

Difficult syntax: The surgeon consoled the man and the woman put her hand on his forehead.

Easy syntax: The surgeon consoled the man and the woman because the operation had not been successful.

Curiously, sentences with a difficult meaning had no influence on the ‘finished judgements’.

Difficult meaning: The programmer let his mouse run around on the table after he had fed it.

Easy meaning: The programmer let his field mouse run around on the table after he had fed it.

Because only language syntax influenced ‘finished judgements’, we believe that music and language share a common syntax processor of some kind. This conclusion is in line with a number of other studies which I blogged about before.

What this paper adds is that we rule out an attentional link between music and language as the source of the effect. In other words, difficult syntax doesn’t simply distract you and thereby disables your music hearing. Its influence is based on a common syntax processor instead.

In the end, I tested 278 participants across 3 pre-tests, 2 experiments, and 1 post-test. Judge for yourself whether it was worth it by reading the freely available paper here.

— — —

Kunert R, & Slevc LR (2015). A Commentary on: “Neural overlap in processing music and speech”. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9 PMID: 26089792

Kunert, R., Willems, R., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Language influences music harmony perception: effects of shared syntactic integration resources beyond attention Royal Society Open Science, 3 (2) DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150685

Do music and language share brain resources?

When you listen to some music and when you read a book, does your brain use the same resources? This question goes to the heart of how the brain is organised – does it make a difference between cognitive domains like music and language? In a new commentary I highlight a successful approach which helps to answer this question.

On some isolated island in academia, the tree of knowledge has the form of a brain.

How do we read? What is the brain doing in this picture?

When reading the following sentence, check carefully when you are surprised at what you are reading:

After | the trial | the attorney | advised | the defendant | was | likely | to commit | more crimes.

I bet it was on the segment was. You probably thought that the defendant was advised, rather than that someone else was advised about the defendant. Once you read the word was you need to reinterpret what you have just read. In 2009 Bob Slevc and colleagues found out that background music can change your reading of this kind of sentences. If you hear a chord which is harmonically unexpected, you have even more trouble with the reinterpretation of the sentence on reading was.

Why does music influence language?

Why would an unexpected chord be problematic for reading surprising sentences? The most straight-forward explanation is that unexpected chords are odd. So they draw your attention. To test this simple explanation, Slevc tried out an unexpected instrument playing the chord in a harmonically expected way. No effect on reading. Apparently, not just any odd chord changes your reading. The musical oddity has to stem from the harmony of the chord. Why this is the case, is a matter of debate between scientists. What this experiment makes clear though, is that music can influence language via shared resources which have something to do with harmony processing.

Why ignore the fact that music influences language?

None of this was mention in a recent review by Isabelle Peretz and colleagues on this topic. They looked at where in the brain music and language show activations, as revealed in MRI brain scanners. This is just one way to find out whether music and language share brain resources. They concluded that ‘the question of overlap between music and speech processing must still be considered as an open question’. Peretz call for ‘converging evidence from several methodologies’ but fail to mention the evidence from non-MRI methodologies.1

Sure one has to focus on something, but it annoys me that people tend focus on methods (especially fancy expensive methods like MRI scanners), rather than answers (especially answers from elegant but cheap research into human behaviour like reading). So I decided to write a commentary together with Bob Slevc. We list no less than ten studies which used a similar approach to the one outlined above. Why ignore these results?

If only Peretz and colleagues had truly looked at ‘converging evidence from several methodologies’. They would have asked themselves why music sometimes influences language and why it sometimes does not. The debate is in full swing and already beyond the previous question of whether music and language share brain resources. Instead, researchers ask what kind of resources are shared.

So, yes, music and language appear to share some brain resources. Perhaps this is not easily visible in MRI brain scanners. Looking at how people read with chord sequences played in the background is how one can show this.

— — —
Kunert, R., & Slevc, L.R. (2015). A commentary on “Neural overlap in processing music and speech” (Peretz et al., 2015) Frontiers in Human Neuroscience : doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00330

Peretz I, Vuvan D, Lagrois MÉ, & Armony JL (2015). Neural overlap in processing music and speech. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 370 (1664) PMID: 25646513

Slevc LR, Rosenberg JC, & Patel AD (2009). Making psycholinguistics musical: self-paced reading time evidence for shared processing of linguistic and musical syntax. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16 (2), 374-81 PMID: 19293110
— — —

1 Except for one ECoG study.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this blog post are not necessarily shared by Bob Slevc.

Old people are immune against the cocktail party effect

Imagine standing at a cocktail party and somewhere your name gets mentioned. Your attention is immediately grabbed by the sound of your name. It is a classic psychological effect with a new twist: old people are immune.

Someone mention my name?

The so-called cocktail party effect has fascinated researchers for a long time. Even though you do not consciously listen to a conversation around you, your own name can grab your attention. That means that unbeknownst to you, you follow the conversations around you. You check them for salient information like your name, and if it occurs you quickly switch attention to where your name was mentioned.

The cocktail party simulated in the lab

In the lab this is investigated slightly differently. Participants listen to one ear and, for example, repeat whatever they hear. Their name is embedded in what they hear coming in to the other (unattended) ear. After the experiment one simply asks ‘Did you hear your own name?’ In a recent paper published by Moshe Naveh-Benjamin and colleagues (in press), around half of the young student participants noticed their name in such a set-up. Compare this to old people aged around 70: next to nobody (only six out of 76 participants) noticed their name being mentioned in the unattended ear.

Why this age difference? Do old people simply not hear well? Unlikely, when the name was played to the ear that they attended to, 45% of old people noticed their names. Clearly, many old people can hear their names, but they do not notice their names if they do not pay attention to this. Young people do not show such a sharp distinction. Half the time they notice their names, even when concentrating on something else.

Focusing the little attention that is available

Naveh-Benjamin and colleagues instead suggest that old people simply have less attention. When they focus on a conversation, they give it their everything. Nothing is left for the kind of unconscious checking of conversations which young people can do so well.

At the next cocktail party you can safely gossip about your old boss. Just avoid mentioning the name of the young new colleague who just started.

 

— — —

Naveh-Benjamin M, Kilb A, Maddox GB, Thomas J, Fine HC, Chen T, & Cowan N (2014). Older adults do not notice their names: A new twist to a classic attention task. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition PMID: 24820668

— — —

Picture:

By Financial Times (Patrón cocktail bar) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

ResearchBlogging.org

Play music and you’ll see more

 

Check out the video. It is a short demonstration of the so-called attentional blink. Whenever you try to spot the two letters in the rapid sequence you’ll miss the second one. This effect is so robust that generations of Psychology undergraduates learned about it. And then came music and changed everything.

Test your own attentional blink

Did you see the R in the video? Probably you did, but did you see the C? The full sequence starts at 0:48, the R occurs at 0:50 and the sequence ends at 0:53. As far as I can see each letter is presented for about 130 milliseconds (a typical rate for this sort of experiment).

Z P J E M S B S W P E R X C H W Z H B J P S W E Z S W H B P X J H E B P W Z S

Judging by the youtube comments, of those who did the task properly (14 comments when I checked), only 65% saw the C. This is remarkably close to the average performance during an attentional blink (around 60% or so).

Where does the attentional blink come from?

The idea is that when the C is presented it cannot enter attention because attention is busy with the R. Another theory states that you immediately forget that you’ve seen the C. The R is less vulnerable to rapid forgetting.

What does music do with our attention?

In 2005 Christian Olivers and Sander Nieuwenhuis reported that they could simply abolish this widely known effect by playing a rhythmic tune in the background (unfortunately no more details are given). Try it out yourself. Switch on the radio and play a song with a strong beat. Now try the video again. Can you see both the R and the C? The 16 people in the music condition of Olivers and Nieuwenhuis could. Music actually let them see things which without music were invisible.

It is a bit mysterious why music would have such an effect. The article only speculates that it has something to do with music inducing a more ‘diffuse’ state of mind, greater arousal, or positive mood. I think the answer lies somewhere else. Music, especially songs with a strong beat, change how we perceive the world. On the beat (i.e. when most people would clap to the beat) one pays more attention than off the beat. What music might have done to participants is to restructure attention. Once the R occurs, it is no longer able to dominate attention because people are following the rhythmic attentional structure.

Behind my explanation is the so-called dynamic attending theory. Unfortunately, Olivers and Nieuwenhuis appear not to be familiar with it. Perhaps it is time to include some music cognition lessons in psychology undergraduate classes. After all, a bit of music let’s you see things which otherwise remain hidden to you.

———————————————————————————————–

Jones, M., & Boltz, M. (1989). Dynamic attending and responses to time. Psychological Review, 96 (3), 459-491 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.96.3.459

Large, E., & Jones, M. (1999). The dynamics of attending: How people track time-varying events. Psychological Review, 106 (1), 119-159 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.106.1.119

Olivers, C., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The Beneficial Effect of Concurrent Task-Irrelevant Mental Activity on Temporal Attention Psychological Science, 16 (4), 265-269 DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01526.x

ResearchBlogging.org

Computer Gaming = Mental Training?

A mental trainer.

Computer gaming often gets a bad press. It gets linked to brutal murders (school shootings in Columbine, US  and Winnenden, Germany , the massacre on Utoya and in Oslo, Norway ), gang culture, physical decline and death, brain degeneration, and low productivity. Susan Greenfield, a neurophysiologist and something of a celebrity scientist in the UK, links them to aggression, recklessness, and a decline in prosocial behaviour. However, there is also a growing literature on cognitive benefits resulting from the mental training provided by ordinary computer games. How good is the evidence for these positive side effects of being hooked on a video game?
.
The start of the ‘computer gaming=mental training’ argument can be traced back to an article published in Nature in 2003. In it, Green and Bavelier claimed to have found evidence for bigger and better attentional resources in video game players compared to non-players. For example, in one task participants were asked to count squares briefly flashed on a screen. There are two ways to solve this task: subitizing, i.e. immediately ‘seeing’ the right number as after having rolled a die, and counting. Video game players could subitize more items than non-players. However, some may argue that perhaps only people with better attention get drawn to computer games in the first place. Green and Bavelier (2003) addressed this issue by training people for one hour a day over ten days on either Medal of Honor – an action game – or Tetris – a control game. Only the action game trained participants’ visual attention improved. The conclusion appears clear: forget about tedious, commercial brain trainers, play action games to boost your attention abilities.
However, has the effect stood the test of time? Last year Boot and colleagues reviewed the literature and reported that researchers found out that gamers are superior to non-gamers in terms of various mental faculties: mental rotation, visual acuity, decision making, etc. Studies finding a relation greatly outnumber those which don’t. Furthermore, training studies are rarer but generally also find positive associations between action game ‘training’ and many of the aforementioned cognitive abilities. It looks like it is time to write a letter to all the fear mongers who link action video gaming to all sorts of social problems … not so fast.

Would you notice the difference to a mental trainer?

Has the effect stood the test of science? Even though the aforementioned studies were published in reputable scientific journals and apparently stood the test of time Boot and colleagues (2011) are critical of the claims of the ‘computer gaming=mental training’ field. For starters, most studies compare gamers to non-gamers and with this approach you never know what caused what (e.g., people get trained by computer games, or superior people get drawn to computer games) or whether giving people the feeling of being an expert already enhances their performance.
The latter criticism also applies to training studies. In clinical trials of new medications, participants are not aware what condition they are in – whether they receive the real pill or the sugar pill. In game training studies, on the other hand, participants always know the game they are playing, obviously. Why would this be a problem? Tetris involves mental rotation but does not involve attentional demands. Medal of Honor in many ways is the reverse. If you were a participant and told to predict which training would benefit attentional abilities, what would you say? Just the expectation of improvement may drive the observed changes, i.e. a placebo effect. In sum, there currently isn’t very convincing evidence for the ‘computer gaming=mental training’ account.
Still, the accumulated evidence is at least suggestive of real cognitive improvements. So, instead of looking in fear at brain washed gaming geeks on the verge of violent outbursts, we should perhaps envy them for their superior mental abilities.
One moment. There is still the issue of those negative side effects. There, it turns out that a recent review by Hall and colleagues (2011) found the literature to be split between studies claiming a gaming-aggression link and those that do not. Even meta-analyses on this issue do not agree with each other. Furthermore, there are also substantial methodological issues in this field (Adachi and Willoughby, 2011).
My message to gamers: game on.
——————————————————————————–
Adachi, P.J.C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more than just the violence? Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 16, 55-62. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.002
Boot, W.R., Blakely, D.P., & Simons, D.J. (2011). Do action video games improve perception and cognition? Frontiers in Psychology, 2,1. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00226
Green, C.S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423, 534-537. doi:10.1038/nature01647
Hall, R.C.W., Day, T., & Hall, R.C.W. (2011). A Plea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 86, 315-321. doi:10.4065.mcp.2010.0762