ArticleScientific reports2016
Unimodal and cross-modal prediction is enhanced in musicians.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organizational principles of multidimensional predictions in human auditory attention.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- The Influence of Music Reading on Spatial Working Memory and Self-Assessment Accuracy.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Increased engagement of the cognitive control network associated with music training in children during an fMRI Stroop task.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musical training involves exposure to complex auditory and visual stimuli, memorization of elaborate sequences, and extensive motor rehearsal. It has been hypothesized that such multifaceted training may be associated with differences in basic cognitive functions, such as prediction, potentially translating to a facilitation in expert musicians. Moreover, such differences might generalize to non-auditory stimuli. This study was designed to test both hypotheses. We implemented a cross-modal attentional cueing task with auditory and visual stimuli, where a target was preceded by compatible or incompatible cues in mainly compatible (80% compatible, predictable) or random blocks (50% compatible, unpredictable). This allowed for the testing of prediction skills in musicians and controls. Musicians showed increased sensitivity to the statistical structure of the block, expressed as advantage for compatible trials (disadvantage for incompatible trials), but only in the mainly compatible (predictable) blocks. Controls did not show this pattern. The effect held within modalities (auditory, visual), across modalities, and when controlling for short-term memory capacity. These results reveal a striking enhancement in cross-modal prediction in musicians in a very basic cognitive task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.