↓ Skip to main content

Musicians Are Better than Non-musicians in Frequency Change Detection: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Musicians Are Better than Non-musicians in Frequency Change Detection: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun Liang, Brian Earl, Ivy Thompson, Kayla Whitaker, Steven Cahn, Jing Xiang, Qian-Jie Fu, Fawen Zhang

Abstract

Objective: The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine if musicians have a better ability to detect frequency changes under quiet and noisy conditions; (2) to use the acoustic change complex (ACC), a type of electroencephalographic (EEG) response, to understand the neural substrates of musician vs. non-musician difference in frequency change detection abilities. Methods: Twenty-four young normal hearing listeners (12 musicians and 12 non-musicians) participated. All participants underwent psychoacoustic frequency detection tests with three types of stimuli: tones (base frequency at 160 Hz) containing frequency changes (Stim 1), tones containing frequency changes masked by low-level noise (Stim 2), and tones containing frequency changes masked by high-level noise (Stim 3). The EEG data were recorded using tones (base frequency at 160 and 1200 Hz, respectively) containing different magnitudes of frequency changes (0, 5, and 50% changes, respectively). The late-latency evoked potential evoked by the onset of the tones (onset LAEP or N1-P2 complex) and that evoked by the frequency change contained in the tone (the acoustic change complex or ACC or N1'-P2' complex) were analyzed. Results: Musicians significantly outperformed non-musicians in all stimulus conditions. The ACC and onset LAEP showed similarities and differences. Increasing the magnitude of frequency change resulted in increased ACC amplitudes. ACC measures were found to be significantly different between musicians (larger P2' amplitude) and non-musicians for the base frequency of 160 Hz but not 1200 Hz. Although the peak amplitude in the onset LAEP appeared to be larger and latency shorter in musicians than in non-musicians, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The amplitude of the onset LAEP is significantly correlated with that of the ACC for the base frequency of 160 Hz. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that musicians do perform better than non-musicians in detecting frequency changes in quiet and noisy conditions. The ACC and onset LAEP may involve different but overlapping neural mechanisms. Significance: This is the first study using the ACC to examine music-training effects. The ACC measures provide an objective tool for documenting musical training effects on frequency detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 25%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 24%
Psychology 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,012
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,615
of 320,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#57
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.