association of music education

7/29/2019 Association of Music Education

1/7

MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Implications of Music and Brain ResearchAuthor(s): Donald A. HodgesSource: Music Educators Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, Special Focus: Music and the Brain (Sep.,2000), pp. 17-22Published by: MENC: The National Association for Music EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399643

Accessed: 17/12/2009 13:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

MENC: The National Association for Music Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toMusic Educators Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399643?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menchttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menchttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3399643?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

MUSIC AND THE BRAINIMPLICATIOF MUSICA N D BRAINRESEARC

Thisintroductoryrticleoffers n overviewofneuromusicalesearchnd articulatessomebasicpremises erivedromthisresearch.

n recentyears,we have witnessedan explosion of information aboutthe brain. New imaging tech-niques have given neuroscientiststhe tools to peer into the brain in

ways unimaginable just a few yearsago. What they are learning is revolu-tionizing our understanding of thisincredible neural machinery, and nowthey are able to ask-and answer-questions that will eventually unravelmany mysteries of the mind.

Among these mysteries is music.Why are human beings musical? Howdoes music processing take place inthe brain? Are there strategies wecould uncover that would allow peopleto learn music more efficiently? Isthere an optimal time for learningmusic? How is it that some cognitivelyimpaired individuals can be so musi-cally proficient? On and on go thequestions we would like to haveanswered.

For many music educators, obtain-ing information about recent discover-

Donald.Hodges,heguest ditoror his pe-cial ocus, s professorfmusicn themusicdepartmentt theUniversityf TexasnSanAntonio.

Music is oneof thehallmarksof what itmeans o be a humanbeing.

ies involvingmusic and the brainmaybe difficult. This is so because thereporting of neuromusical research isoften polarized: ither it appears n sci-entific journalsin languagethat is toodifficult for nonscientiststo easilyreadand understand, or it appears in thepopularpressin such a watered-downfashion that actual facts may be dis-torted or obscured.The intent of thisspecialfocus issueof the Music Educa-tors ournal s to providecurrentneuro-

musical information in a way that is atonce accurate and accessible to musiceducators.To that end, the articles in thisissue provide a broad overview ofmany important topics, along withconsiderabledetail and many referencelists to guide the reader in furtherexploration. We begin with "Musicand the Baby's Brain: Early MusicExperiences." In this article, DonnaBrink Fox reviews the literature oninfant and earlychildhood music withrespectto braindevelopment.Perhapssurprisingto some, but probably notto those activelyworking with youngchildren, is the idea that many adult-like responses to music are alreadyapparent in infants. Cross-culturalstudies are confirming that even ifmusic is not a universallanguage (inthe sense that we do not automaticallyunderstand the music of unfamiliarcultures),music (like singing lullabiesor responding affectively to music inthe surroundingenvironment) is uni-versal.Based on her review of the neu-roscientific literature,Fox offers sup-port for several key ideas in earlychildhood music education, such asthe fact that active engagement, notpassivelistening, spurs brain develop-ment. She concludes by giving exam-

SEPTEMBER 2000 17


3/7

pies of ways in which we can collabo-rate with others to create the healthi-est, most effective climate for themusical development of young chil-dren.The next article, "EEG Studieswith Young Children," continues bylooking at brain activity in preschooland elementaryschool children.Here,John Flohr, Dan Miller, and RogerdeBeus explain electroencephalogram(EEG) techniquesand how they havebeen applied to the study of musicalbehaviors in children. Some of theresearchsupportsthe similarityof acti-vation patterns n childrenand adults,but other studies identify ways inwhich the developingbrain is differentfrom the adultbrain.Though we don'tyet know the precisecharacteristics fthe "window of opportunity" forlearning music, researchinvestigatorsare moving toward a more completeunderstandingof them.In "Does Music Make YouSmarter?" Steven Demorest andStevenMorrison take up a very timelytopic. The notion that exposing chil-dren to music increases their brainpower is perhapsthe best example ofhow music educators can get caughtbetweenwhat is reported n the popu-lar pressand what is actuallyreportedin scientific journals. Demorest andMorrisonreview the variousaspectsofthis issue and presenta balancedview-point basedon a carefulreadingof theliterature.To serve our students well,we need to look at the researchhon-estlyand dispassionately."A Virtual Panel of ExpertResearchers"presents excerpts frominterviews with four senior research-ers-Andrea Halpern, LarryParsons,Ralph Spingte, and Sandra Trehub.Individually and collectively, theyshareimportantideasfor music educa-tors. Perhapsone of the most impor-tant ideas they communicate is thatserious scientistsaretakingmusic seri-ously. These researchershave devoteda major part of their careers o under-standing musical behavior. To them,music is not a frivolous sideline, butsomethingthat is at the core of what itmeans to be a human being. We cantake encouragementfrom their dedi-cation to studying that which is soimportantto us.

PremisesDerivedfromNeuromusicalResearch? The human brain has the abilityto respondto and participate n music.* The musical brainoperatesat birthand persists hroughoutlife.* Early and ongoing musical training affects the organization of themusicalbrain.* The musical brain consists of extensive neural systems involving widelydistributed,but locallyspecializedregionsof the brain:

* Cognitivecomponents* Affectivecomponents* Motor components.

* The musical brain is highlyresilient.

Neuroscientists have studied soundproductionand processing n animals;they have studied fetal responses tomusic, as well as responsesamong theelderly, including those havingAlzheimer'sdiseaseor other cognitivedementias. Neuroscientists have alsoexamined special populations, such asprodigies or those with savant syn-drome or Williams Syndrome. Re-sponses of naive listeners have beencompared to those of expert musi-cians. From all these approaches, anumber of important concepts areemerging.While not all these findingshave direct applications to the dailypractice of music education, collec-tively they do have much to offer ourprofession.AnOverviewf NeuromusicalResearchHere is an introduction that pro-vides a more detailed look at musicand brainresearch han that providedby the popular media. Highlights ofrecent neuromusical studies are pre-sented, and basic premises derivedfrom the studies are articulated. Thesidebarsummarizes hesepremises.The human brain has the abilityto respond to and participate inmusic. Music, like language, is aspecies-specific trait of humankind.1All human beings-and only humanbeings-have music.NeurologistFrankWilson says that he is "convinced hatall of us have a biologic guaranteeof

musicianship."2Wilson does not meanthat all of us areguaranteed o becomemusicians on par with Mozart, butrather that we all have the capacitytorespondto and participaten the musicof our environment. Music, then, isone of the hallmarksof what it meansto be a humanbeing.Much of the literature that sup-ports this notion comes from anthro-pologistswho tell us that "allpeople inall times and in all places haveengagedin musical behaviors."3Basedon the neuroscientific literature citedthroughoutthis issue, we can say thatmounting and incontrovertible evi-dence supportsthe ubiquityof humanmusicality.Further,we can say that amusical brain is the birthright of allhumanbeings.Clearly, the idea that all humanbeings are musical has enormousimplications for music education. Amusic education should not bereservedfor those "with talent," norshould it be restricted to those whocan affordit or whose parentsdeem itimportant.All members of our society,from cradle to grave, stand to benefitfrom being musically nvolved.It is true that many animals havesound-producing and -processingcapabilities.They process sound as itoccurs across time, ascribe"meaning"to this sound, and adjust their behav-ior accordingly.A cat respondingto abarkingdog, for example,is an animalprocessingsound.

MUSIC EDUCATORS JOURNAL8


4/7

Although we tend to anthropomor-phize animal behaviors-and to besure, we can probably never knowexactlywhat is going on inside an ani-mal's brain-it is safe to say that thevast majority, if not all, of animalsound-making has to do with suchthings as territoriality, signaling,courtship, and mating.4 In otherwords, although we refer to birdsong,it is not likely that birdsor other ani-mals sing for musicalor aestheticplea-sure.Early research indicated someremarkablemusical feats, such as cer-tain birds being able to distinguishbetween different composers. How-ever, more careful investigation indi-cates that animalsrelyon absolutefre-

quency analysis5rather than on rela-tive pitch as we do.6 Thus, while vari-ous animals can be trained to choosebetweentwo songs, they fail miserablyif those songs are transposed.By con-trast, even among those humans withabsolutepitch, our sophisticatedmusi-cality is possible,in large part,becausewe deal with pitch relationships."Yan-kee Doodle," for instance, is recogniz-able to us when begun in any key.There are other cognitive limita-tions among animals as well. Forexample, musical forms rangingfromsimpleverseand chorus alternations olengthy symphonicmovements can beprocessedby humans because of theirability to retain musical informationfor long periods of time. If any ani-mals are musical, dolphins are themost so. But they can recognize thesecond A section of a simple ABAform only if each section is no morethantwo secondslong.7One might reasonablyask whethergiving animalshuman musical tasks isfair; after all, we can't understandmany of their vocalizations.However,the point of this line of research isreally twofold. First, we can begin totrace the developmentof auditoryandcognitive mechanisms from an evolu-tionarystandpoint.This type of infor-mation can be used to offer a plausibleexplanationfor the evolutionarybasisof human musicality.8Second, we canbegin to look for the additional brainmechanisms unique to humans thatmake our musicalitypossible.

The musical brain operates atbirth and persists throughout life.The fact that babiesrespondto musicat birth (and, in fact, in the wombduring the last three months beforebirth) gives strong evidence for theexistence of neural mechanisms thatseem ideally suited for processingmusical information.9 This topic iscovered more fully in this issue's arti-cles on "Music and the Baby'sBrain"and "EEG Studies with Young Chil-dren."

A music ducationshouldnot be reservedforthosewith "talent,"norshould t berestrictedo thosewhocanaffordt orwhoseparentsdeem timportant.

At the other end of the life spec-trum, a group of retired nuns hasoffered to donate their brains to sci-ence.10 They are being studied con-stantlyas they age. The firstoutcomesof the projectreveal that (a) the morelearningone has in childhood, the lesslikely one is to be debilitated byAlzheimer'sdisease or other forms ofcognitive dementia, and (b) the com-mon adage"Use it or lose it" is soundadvice. Even as they progress nto theireightiesand nineties, these women areencouragedto learn new skills. Learn-ing to play a musical instrument,or adifferent one if they can alreadyplayone, is frequentlyadvisedby the neu-roscientists.The clear implication for musiceducators is that neuroscientificresearchsupportsan emphasison life-long learning n music. Our professionneeds to continue to expand beyondthe confines of K-12 music education.

Indeed, it may be in this underex-plored area that we will find the mostopportunitiesfor new growth.Early and ongoing musical train-ing affects the organization of themusical brain. There are growingindications that those who studymusic, particularly beginning at anearly age, show neurological differ-encescomparedto those who havenothad such training. Frederique Faitaand Mireille Besson demonstrated hatmusicallytrainedsubjectshad strongerand faster brain responsesto musicaltasks than untrained subjects.11(Seethis issue'sarticle "EEG Studies withYoung Children" for additional stud-ies.) Brain imaging data demonstratethat the primaryauditorycortexin theleft hemispheresof musically trainedsubjects is larger than that ofuntrained subjects.12This differencewas exaggerated for those withabsolute pitch or those who startedtheir musical training before ageseven.13 Moreover, for the musicallytrained, the arrangementof the audi-tory cortex is much like a piano key-board, with equal distance betweenoctaves. 14

The areaof the motor cortex con-trolling the fingers increased inresponseto piano exercises,both actu-al and imagined.15The auditory cor-tex, which responds to piano tones,was 25 percent larger among experi-enced musicians; he effect wasgreaterfor those who started studying musicat an earlyage.16Finally,comparedtononplayers,string playershave greaterneuronal activity and a largerarea inthe area of the rightmotor cortex thatcontrols the fingersof the left hand.17Again, these effects were greater forthose who startedplaying at a youngage.Although there are apparent mpli-cations for music educationfrom thesedata, a note of caution must be insert-ed. First,probablyanything we do inearlychildhood has an effect on brainorganization.It is likely that compar-isons between chess players andnonchess players, or between highlevel mathematicians and those whocan barelyadd and subtract,for exam-pie, would also show differences.Sec-ond, it is not at all clear whether thereare transfer effects. That is, it is not

SEPTEMBER 2000 19


5/7

Earlynd ngoing usicalrainingffectsheorganizationf hemusicalrain.

certain that music education necessari-ly improves performance in othermodes of cognition. This question isdiscussed in this issue's articles "A Vir-tual Panel of Expert Researchers" and"Does Music Make You Smarter?"

The musical brain consists ofextensive neural systems involvingwidely distributed, but locally spe-cialized regions of the brain. One ofthe more visible topics of research inthe 1970s dealt with differencesbetween the left and right sides of thebrain. Naive interpretations ofresearch data led to such notions as"musical knowledge is in the right sideof the brain." We now know that it isnot that simple. Reviews of researchliterature indicate that results can behighly varied depending on subjectvariables (like how much and whatkind of training subjects havereceived), stimulus variables (like com-puter-generated tone pipes versus"real"music), and task variables (likewhat the subjects are asked to listenfor).18 Furthermore, many would con-tend that two-second sound bites (arequirement for much of this type ofresearch) do not adequately representmusic and that using amusical frag-ments doesn't tell us much about whathappens when people hear a Mozartsymphony, for example.

These considerations do not pre-clude the possibilitythat there aredif-ferences in the ways the two hemi-spheres processmusic. For example, aportion of the right auditory cortexhas been implicatedin the retention ofrhythmic patterns.19 (Interestinglyenough, datafrom the same study didnot supporta link between left hemi-sphere timing mechanisms and musi-cal rhythm, something that had beenpreviously proposed.)20 The righthemisphere was also more stronglyimplicatedthan the left hemisphere nmusic instrument timbre recogni-tion.21

Reviewing the bulk of neuromusi-cal research iterature eads to the con-clusion that music is not just in theright side of the brain, but is repre-sented all over the brain. One of themajor findings in a recent study wasthat musical processing is spreadthroughout the brain-front/back,top/bottom, and left/right.22Further-more, selectivelychangingthe focus ofattention radicallyalters brain activa-tion patterns.23 Thus, rather thanfocusing on a simplistic left-rightdichotomy,it may be more accurate othink of musical processingas involv-ing widely diffuseareasof the brain.It can be said that the musical brainis modularized.That is, musicalexpe-

riences are nlultimodal, involving atthe least the auditory, visual, cogni-tive, affective, memory, and motor sys-tems. Beyond that, each component ofmusic processing and responding islikely to be handled by different neur-al mechanisms. This idea is consistentwith what is known about language,but with language the linkage betweenfunction and location is more clearlydelineated than it is for music. Scien-tists using modern neuroscientifictechniques are beginning to identifyspecific structures in the brain thatcarry out specific musical tasks.

Cognitive Components.A number ofstudies have indicated that music pro-cessing involves functionally indepen-dent modules. In a 1998 study, neuralmechanisms for melodic, harmonic,and rhythmic error detection werefound to be independent from eachother.24 Also, music reading activatedan area on the right side of the brainparallel to an area on the left side acti-vated during language reading. A1997 study showed that familiaritywith music, timbre recognition, andrhythm perception activated differentregions of the brain.25 In a 1988study, it was found that the electricalactivity of sophisticated music listenersis different from that of naivelisteners.26 Based on a 1991 study, thebrain appears to use working memoryfor music; working memory refers tothe process of comparing incomingmusical information to stored infor-mation.27

Affective Components. Althoughemotional response to music is per-haps one of the most important topicsof research, it is also among the mostdifficult to study. There is a lack ofknowledge about this central aspect ofthe musical experience. A recent studyindicated that different neural struc-tures were activated in response topositive and negative emotions.28 Fur-thermore, these structures, locatedmostly in the right hemisphere, aredissociated (that is, separate from)neural correlates of various emotionsand function apart from other musicperceptual processes. Music medicineresearch is making effective use ofmusic to reduce fear and anxiety insurgical and pain patients.29 Experi-ments show that hearing music affects



6/7

the biochemistryof the blood, whichin turn may cause affective changes.For example, physicians are able toreduce drug dosages and speed uprecoverytimes by using music in cer-tain medical procedures. In otherwords, music is not just a psychologi-cal distractor; rather, it elicits actualphysical changes in the system. (Itshould be noted that researchon emo-tional, mood, and feeling responsesismuch less developed in psychologyand neuroscience than research ontopics such as learning and sensoryperception.)MotorComponents. he connectionbetween music and movement is fun-damental to both expressive andreceptive modes. Music making(expressivemode) is clearly a bodilykinesthetic experience. NeurologistFrankWilson recognizedthis when hecalled musicians "small-muscle ath-letes."30 In one study, professionalpianists underwent brain scans whileperforming Bach on the piano.31Among the resultswas a cleardemon-stration that motor control systemswere highly activated during perfor-mance. At the same time, otherregions of the brain were stronglydeactivated-in effect, switched off-which is a hypothesized indicator offocused concentration.Abundant research data indicatethat there are both physiological andphysicalresponsesduring music listen-ing (receptive mode). Physiologicalresponses include changes in heartrate, blood pressure, and a host ofother systems.32All of us have experi-enced physical responses to musicsuch as foot tappingor head nodding.Researchers are using this naturalresponse to music in a process called"RhythmicAuditory Stimulation" toenable Parkinsonian and strokepatients to regainwalking and motorskills.33These brief sections on cognitive,affective,and motor components onlyskim the surface. But perhapsthe dis-cussion is sufficient to support thecontention that music is modularizedin the brain. The literatureon "amu-sia," loss of musical function due todestruction of brain tissue, gives fur-ther evidence of modularity.In thesecases, individuals who have suffered

destruction of particularbrain tissuecorrespondinglylose specific musicalabilities.34

It maybe more ccurateto thinkofmusicalprocessingsinvolvingwidelydiffuse reasofthe brain.

The musical brain is highlyresilient. Music persists n peoplewhoareblind, deaf, emotionallydisturbed,profoundly retarded, or affected bydisabilities or diseases such asAlzheimer's disease or savant syn-drome.Regardless f the degreeof dis-ability or illness, it is possible for theindividualto have a meaningfulmusi-cal experience. Any music therapistcould easily testify to the residualpower of music. The research litera-tureon amusiareveals hat destructionof brain tissue may eliminate a parti-cular musical function (e.g., ability totrackrhythms),but it does not elimi-nate music entirely.Another fascinat-ing exampleconcernsindividualswithWilliamsSyndrome.These cognitivelyimpairedindividuals have averageIQsof 65-70, yet they often have remark-ablemusicalabilities.35OngoingndFuture esearch

Although hundreds of researchstudies fall under the categoryof neu-romusicalresearch, his is still a smallamount comparedto the study of lan-guage, for example.In that sense, it isa little premature to make broad,sweeping statements that have directbearing on the daily teaching ofmusic. Certainly, however, there is

everyreason to believe that continuedefforts along these lines will providesignificant applicable benefits in thefuture.There is one more idea that hasprofound implications for our profes-sion: Neuromusical researchsupportsthe notion that music is a uniquemode of knowing. The literatureclearly supportsthe notion that musicis dissociatedfrom linguistic or othertypes of cognitive processes. There-fore, it provides a unique means ofprocessingand understandinga parti-cular kind of nonverbal information.By studying the effects of music, neu-roscientists are able to discoverthingsabout the brainthat they cannot knowthrough other cognitive processes.Likewise, through music we are ableto discover, share, express,and knowaboutaspectsof the human experiencethat we cannot know through anyother means. Musicalinsights into thehuman condition are uniquelypower-ful experiences hat cannot be replacedby any other form of experience.It isto a deeper understandingof this corevalue of music that neuromusicalresearch will continue to make itsmost importantcontributions.In this special focus issue, we areattempting to represent the currentstate of neuromusicalknowledge. It isour hope that music educators willfind these articles readable and infor-mative. Because the field is changingrapidly, t is importantfor music edu-cators to keep abreastof new findings.In time, the picturewill become clear-er and clearer,and our professionwillbenefit greatlyfrom what is learnedinthis emergingfield.

Notes1. John Blacking, How Musical Is Man?

(Seattle: University of Washington Press,1973).

2. Frank Wilson, Tone Deaf and AllThumbs? New York:Viking, 1986), 2.3. Donald Hodges and Paul Haack, "TheInfluence of Music on Human Behavior," inHandbook ofMusic Psychology, nd ed., editedby D. Hodges (University of Texas at SanAntonio: IMR Press, 1996), 473.

4. J. Brody, "Not Just Music, Bird Song Isa Means of Courtship and Defense," NewYorkTimes, 9 April 1991.

SEPTEMBER 2000 21


7/7

5. M. D'Amato, "A Search for Tonal Pat-tern Perception in Cebus Monkeys: WhyMonkeys Can't Hum a Tune," Music Percep-tion 5, no. 4 (1988): 453-80.

6. Sandra Trehub, Dale Bull, and LeighThorpe, "Infants' Perception of Melodies:The Role of Melodic Contour," Child Devel-opment55 (1984): 821-30.

7. Richard Warren, "Perception ofAcoustic Sequences: Global IntegrationversusTemporal Resolution," in Thinkingin Sound,edited by Stephen McAdams and EmmanuelBigand (New York: Oxford University Press,1993), 37-68.

8. Donald Hodges, "Why Are We Musi-cal? Speculations on the Evolutionary Plausi-bility of Musical Behavior," Bulletin of theCouncilfor Research n Music Education, no.99 (1989): 7-22; Donald Hodges, "HumanMusicality," in Handbook of Music Psychology,2nd ed., edited by D. Hodges (University ofTexas at San Antonio: IMR Press, 1996),29-68.

9. Jeane-Pierre Lecanuet, "Prenatal Audi-tory Experience," in Irene Deliege and JohnSloboda, Musical Beginnings: Origins andDevelopment of Music Competence,edited byIrene Deliege and John Sloboda (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1996), 3-34; andHanus Papousek, "Musicality in InfancyResearch: Biological and Cultural Origins ofEarly Musicality," also in Musical Beginnings,37-55.

10. Daniel Golden, "Building a BetterBrain,"Life,July 1994, 62-70.11. Frederique Faita and Mireille Besson,

"Electrophysiological Index of MusicalExpectancy: Is There a Repetition Effect onthe Event-related Potentials Associated withMusical Incongruities?" in Proceedingsof the3rd InternationalConferenceor Music Percep-tion and Cognition, edited by Irene Deliege(Liege, Belgium: n.p., 1994), 433-35.

12. Gottfried Schlaug, Lutz Jancke, Yan-xiong Huang, and Helmuth Steinmetz, "InVivo Morphometry of InterhemisphericAsymmetry and Connectivity in Musicians,"in Proceedings f the 3rd InternationalConfer-enceforMusic Perceptionand Cognition,editedby Irene Deliege (Liege, Belgium: n.p., 1994),417-18.

13. Gottfried Schlaug, Lutz Jancke, Yanx-iong Huang, and Helmuth Steinmetz, "InVivo Evidence of Structural BrainAsymmetryin Musicians," Science267, no. 5198 (1995):699-701.

14. Samuel Williamson and Lloyd Kauf-man, "Auditory Evoked Magnetic Fields," in

Physiology f the Ear, edited by A. Jahn and J.Santos-Sacchi (New York: Raven Press,1988), 497-505.

15. Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Nguyet Dang,Leonardo Cohen, Joaquin Brasil-Neto, AngelCammarota, and Mark Hallett, "Modulationof Muscle Responses Evoked by TranscranialMagnetic Stimulation during the Acquisitionof New Fine Motor Skills,"Journal ofNeuro-physiology 4, no. 3 (1995): 1037-45.16. Christo Pantev, Robert Oostenveld,Almut Engelien, Bernhard Ross, Larry E.Roberts, and Manfried Hoke, "IncreasedAuditory Cortical Representation," Nature392, no. 6678 (April23, 1998): 811-13.

17. Thomas Elbert, Christo Pantev, Chris-tian Wienbruch, Brigitte Rockstrub, andEdward Taub, "Increased Cortical Represen-tation of the Fingers of the Left Hand inString Players,"Science270, no. 5234 (1995):305-7.

18. Donald Hodges, "NeuromusicalResearch: A Review of the Literature," inHandbook ofMusic Psychology, nd ed., editedby D. Hodges (University of Texas at SanAntonio: IMR Press, 1996), 203-90.

19. Virginia Penhune, Robert Zatorre,and W. Feindel, "The Role of the AuditoryCortex in Retention of Rhythmic Patterns asStudied in Patients with Temporal LobeRemovals Including Heschl's Gyrus," Neu-ropsychologia7, no. 3 (1999): 315-31.

20. Hans Borchgrevink, "Prosody andMusical Rhythm Are Controlled by theSpeech Hemisphere," in Music, Mind, andBrain: TheNeuropsychologyfMusic, edited byManfred Clynes (New York: Plenum Press,1982), 151-58.

21. K. Hugdahl, K. Bronnick, S. Kyllings-back, I. Law, A. Gade, and 0. Paulson,"Brain Activation during Dichotic Presenta-tions of Consonant-Vowel and MusicalInstrument Stimuli," Neuropsychologia, 37,no. 4 (1999): 431-40.

22. Lawrence Parsons, Peter Fox, andDonald Hodges, "Neural Basis of the Com-prehension of Musical Melody, Harmony,and Rhythm," paper presented at a meetingof the Society for Neuroscience, Los Angeles,November 1998.

23. H. Platel, C. Price, J. C. Baron, R.Wise, J. Lambert, R. Frackowiak,B. Lecheva-lier, and F. Eustache, "The Structural Com-ponents of Music Perception: A FunctionalAnatomical Study," Brain 20, no. 2 (1997):229-43.

24. Parsons et al., "Neural Basis of Com-prehension," 1998.

25. Platel et al., "StructuralComponentsof Music Perception," 1997.

26. Helmuth Petsche, K. Linder, P. Rap-pelsberger, and G. Gruber, "The EEG: AnAdequate Method to Concretize BrainProcessesElicited by Music," Music Perception6, no. 2 (1988): 133-59.

27. Dalia Cohen and Avner Erez, "Event-Related Potential Measurements of CognitiveComponents in Response to Pitch Patterns,"Music Perception8, no. 4 (1991): 405-30.

28. Anne Blood, Robert Zatorre, P.Bermudez, and A. Evans. "EmotionalResponses to Pleasant and Unpleasant MusicCorrelate with Activity in Paralimbic BrainRegions," Nature Neuroscience 2, no. 4(1999): 382-87.

29. Rosalie Pratt and Ralph Spintge,MusicMedicine, vol. 2 (St. Louis, Missouri:MMB Music, 1996); also Ralph Spintge andRoland Droh, MusicMedicine, vol. 1 (St.Louis, Missouri: MMB Music, 1992).

30. Wilson, ToneDeaff 1986.31. Peter Fox, Justine Sergent, Donald

Hodges, Charles Martin, Paul Jerabek,Thomas Glass, Hunter Downs, and Jack Lan-caster, "Piano Performance from Memory: APET Study," paper presented at the HumanBrainMapping Conference, Paris,July 1995.

32. Dale Bartlett, "PhysiologicalRespons-es to Music and Sound Stimuli," in Hand-book of Music Psychology,2nd ed., edited byD. Hodges (University of Texas at San Anto-nio: IMR Press, 1996), 343-85.

33. Gerald Mcintosh, Michael Thaut, andRuth Rice, "Rhythmic Auditory Stimulationas an Entrainment and Therapy Technique:Effects on Gait of Stroke and Parkinsonian'sPatients," in MusicMedicine,vol. 2, edited byRosalie Pratt and Ralph Spintge (St. Louis,Missouri: MMB Music, 1996), 145-52. Seealso Michael Thaut, Gerald Mcintosh, SpirosPrassas,and Ruth Rice, "Effect of RhythmicCuing on Temporal Stride Parameters andEMG Patterns in Hemiparetic Gait of StrokePatients,"Journal of NeurologicRehabilitation7, no. 1 (1993): 9-16.

34. Oscar Marin and David Perry, "Neu-rological Aspects of Music Perception andPerformance," n ThePsychology fMusic, 2nded., edited by Diana Deutsch (New York:Academic Press, 1999), 653-724; see alsoHodges, "Human Musicality," 1996.

35. Daniel Levitin and Ursula Bellugi,"Musical Abilities in Individuals withWilliams Syndrome," Music Perception 15,no. 4 (1998): 357-89. ?


association of music education

Documents