Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 161, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Pitch discrimination accuracy in musicians vs nonmusicians: an event-related potential and behavioral study

  • Mari Tervaniemi
  • Viola Just
  • Stefan Koelsch
  • Andreas Widmann
  • Erich Schröger
Research Article

Abstract

Previously, professional violin players were found to automatically discriminate tiny pitch changes, not discriminable by nonmusicians. The present study addressed the pitch processing accuracy in musicians with expertise in playing a wide selection of instruments (e.g., piano; wind and string instruments). Of specific interest was whether also musicians with such divergent backgrounds have facilitated accuracy in automatic and/or attentive levels of auditory processing. Thirteen professional musicians and 13 nonmusicians were presented with frequent standard sounds and rare deviant sounds (0.8, 2, or 4% higher in frequency). Auditory event-related potentials evoked by these sounds were recorded while first the subjects read a self-chosen book and second they indicated behaviorally the detection of sounds with deviant frequency. Musicians detected the pitch changes faster and more accurately than nonmusicians. The N2b and P3 responses recorded during attentive listening had larger amplitude in musicians than in nonmusicians. Interestingly, the superiority in pitch discrimination accuracy in musicians over nonmusicians was observed not only with the 0.8% but also with the 2% frequency changes. Moreover, also nonmusicians detected quite reliably the smallest pitch changes of 0.8%. However, the mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3a recorded during a reading condition did not differentiate musicians and nonmusicians. These results suggest that musical expertise may exert its effects merely at attentive levels of processing and not necessarily already at the preattentive levels.

Keywords

Pitch discrimination Complex sounds Musical expertise Auditory event-related potentials Mismatch negativity (MMN) P3a N2b P3 

References

  1. Alho K, Woods DL, Algazi A, Näätänen R (1992) Intermodal selective attention II: effects of attentional load on processing auditory and visual stimuli in central space. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 82:356–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amenedo E, Escera C (2000) The accuracy of sound duration representation in the human brain determines the accuracy of behavioural perception. Eur J Neurosci 12:2570–2574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. American Electroencephalographic Society (1991) American electroencephalographic society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 8:200–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berti S, Schröger E (2001) Involuntary attention switch with different levels of distractor strenght. In: Sommerfeld E, Kompass R, Lachmann T (eds) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics. Pabst Science, Lengerich, Germany, pp 285–290Google Scholar
  5. Besson M, Faïta F (1995) An event-related potential (ERP) study of musical expectancy: comparison between musicians and non-musicians. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perfor 21:1278–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besson M, Faïta F, Requin J (1994) Brain waves associated with musical incongruities differ for musicians and non-musicians. Neurosci Lett 168:101–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brattico E, Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M (2001) Context effects on pitch perception in musicians and non-musicians: evidence from ERP recordings. Music Percept 19:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crummer GC, Walton JP, Wayman JW, Hantz EC, Frisina RD (1994) Neural processing of musical timbre by musicians, nonmusicians, and musicians possessing absolute pitch. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2720–2727PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Escera C, Alho K, Schröger E, Winkler I (2000) Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiol Neurootol 5:151–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fastl H, Hesse A (1984) Frequency discrimination for pure tones at short durations. Acustica 56:41–47Google Scholar
  11. Kaernbach C (1991) Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Percept Psychophysiol 49:227–229Google Scholar
  12. Koelsch S, Schröger E, Tervaniemi M (1999) Superior attentive and pre-attentive auditory processing in musicians. Neuroreport 10:1309–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kujala T, Alho K, Näätänen R (2000) Cross-modal reorganization of human cortical functions. Trends Neurosci 23:115–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Münte TF, Altenmüller E, Jäncke L (2002) The musician’s brain as a model of neuroplasticity. Nature Neurosci Rev 3:473–478Google Scholar
  15. Näätänen R (1992) Attention and brain function. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Näätänen R, Simpson M, Loveless NE (1982) Stimulus deviance and evoked potentials. Biol Psychol 14:53–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Näätänen R, Schröger E, Karakas S, Tervaniemi M, Paavilainen P (1993) Development of a memory trace for a complex sound in the human brain. Neuroreport 4:503–506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M, Sussman E, Paavilainen P, Winkler I (2001) ‘Primitive intelligence’ in the auditory cortex. Trends Neurosci 24:283–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Näätänen R, Winkler I (1999) The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychol Bull 6:826–859Google Scholar
  20. Novak G, Ritter W, Vaughan HG Jr (1992a) Mismatch detection and the latency of temporal judgements. Psychophysiology 29:398–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Novak G, Ritter W, Vaughan HG Jr (1992b). The chronometry of attention-modulated processing and automatic mismatch detection. Psychophysiology 29:412–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Novak GP, Ritter W, Vaughan HG, Wiznitzer ML (1990) Differentiation of negative event-related potentials in an auditory discrimination task. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 75:255–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pantev C, Engelien A, Candia V, Elbert T (2001) Representational cortex in musicians: plastic alterations in response to musical practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930:300–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pantev C, Oostenveld R, Engelien A, Ross B, Roberts LE, Hoke M (1998) Increased auditory cortical representation in musicians. Nature 392:811–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pantev C, Roberts LE, Schulz M, Engelien A, Ross B (2001) Timbre-specific enhancement of auditory cortical representations in musicians. Neuroreport 12:169–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pascual-Leone A (2001) The brain that plays music and is changed by it. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930:315–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rauschecker JP (1999) Auditory cortical plasticity: a comparison with other sensory systems. Trends Neurosci 22:74–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rauschecker JP (2001) Cortical plasticity and music. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930:330–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritter W, Paavilainen P, Lavikainen J, Reinikainen K, Alho K, Sams M, Näätänen R (1992) Event-related potentials to repetition and change to auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogra Clin Neurophysiol 83:306–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritter W, Simson R, Vaughan HG, Friedman D (1979) A brain event related to the making of a sensory discrimination. Science 203:1358–1361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Näätänen R (1985) Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 62:437–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlaug G, Chen C (2001) The brain of musicians: a model for functional and structural adaptation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930:281–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schröger E (1997) On the detection of auditory deviations: a pre-attentive activation model. Psychophysiology 34:245–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schröger E (1998) Measurement and interpretation of the Mismatch Negativity (MMN). Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput 30:131–145Google Scholar
  35. Shahin A, Bosnyak DJ, Trainor LJ, Roberts LE (2003) Enhancement of neuroplastic P2 and N1c auditory evoked potentials in musicians. J Neurosci 23:5545–5552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinkkonen J, Tervaniemi M (2000) Towards optimal recording and analysis of the mismatch negativity. Audiol Neurootol 5:235–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tervaniemi M, Rytkönen M, Schröger E, Ilmoniemi RJ, Näätänen R (2001) Superior formation of cortical memory traces for melodic patterns in musicians. Learn Mem 8:295–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tervaniemi M (2001) Musical sound processing: evidence from electric and magnetic recordings. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930:259–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tervaniemi M, Ilvonen T, Sinkkonen J, Kujala A, Alho K, Huotilainen M, Näätänen R (2000a) Harmonic partials facilitate pitch discrimination in humans: electrophysiological and behavioral evidence. Neurosci Lett 279:29–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tervaniemi M, Schröger E, Saher M, Näätänen R (2000b) Effects of spectral complexity and sound duration in complex-sound pitch processing in humans—a mismatch negativity study. Neurosci Lett 290:66–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiitinen H, May P, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R (1994) Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory. Nature 372:90–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Trainor LJ, Desjardings RN, Rockel C (1999) A comparison of contour and interval processing in musicians and nonmusicians using event-related potentials. Aust J Psychol 51:147–153Google Scholar
  43. van Zuijen TL, Sussman E, Winkler I, Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M (2004) Pre-attentive grouping of sequential sounds—an event-related potential study comparing musicians and non-musicians. J Cogn Neurosci 16:331–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mari Tervaniemi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Viola Just
    • 2
  • Stefan Koelsch
    • 3
  • Andreas Widmann
    • 2
  • Erich Schröger
    • 2
  1. 1.Cognitive Brain Research Unit, Department of PsychologyUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki Brain Research CentreHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institut für Allgemeine PsychologieLeipzig UniversitätLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations