Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29941577›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Piano training enhances the neural processing of pitch and improves speech perception in Mandarin-speaking children.

Yun Nan, Li Liu, Eveline Geiser, Hua Shu, Chen Chen Gong, Qi Dong, John D E Gabrieli, Robert Desimone

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yun NanState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, International Data Group (IDG)/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 100875 Beijing, China; nany@bnu.edu.cn desimone@mit.edu.
Li LiuState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, International Data Group (IDG)/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 100875 Beijing, China.
Eveline GeiserMcGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139.
Hua ShuState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, International Data Group (IDG)/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 100875 Beijing, China.
Chen Chen GongMcGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139.
Qi DongState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, International Data Group (IDG)/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 100875 Beijing, China.
John D E GabrieliMcGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139.
Robert DesimoneMcGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139; nany@bnu.edu.cn desimone@mit.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musical training confers advantages in speech-sound processing, which could play an important role in early childhood education. To understand the mechanisms of this effect, we used event-related potential and behavioral measures in a longitudinal design. Seventy-four Mandarin-speaking children aged 4-5 y old were pseudorandomly assigned to piano training, reading training, or a no-contact control group. Six months of piano training improved behavioral auditory word discrimination in general as well as word discrimination based on vowels compared with the controls. The reading group yielded similar trends. However, the piano group demonstrated unique advantages over the reading and control groups in consonant-based word discrimination and in enhanced positive mismatch responses (pMMRs) to lexical tone and musical pitch changes. The improved word discrimination based on consonants correlated with the enhancements in musical pitch pMMRs among the children in the piano group. In contrast, all three groups improved equally on general cognitive measures, including tests of IQ, working memory, and attention. The results suggest strengthened common sound processing across domains as an important mechanism underlying the benefits of musical training on language processing. In addition, although we failed to find far-transfer effects of musical training to general cognition, the near-transfer effects to speech perception establish the potential for musical training to help children improve their language skills. Piano training was not inferior to reading training on direct tests of language function, and it even seemed superior to reading training in enhancing consonant discrimination.

Indexed as

LanguageMusicAttentionChildChild, PreschoolChinaCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermPitch PerceptionSpeech Perceptioneducationmusicpianoreading

Identifiers

PMID29941577
PMCPMC6048476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.