Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102614›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2025

Musical neurodynamics.

Eleanor E Harding, Ji Chul Kim, Alexander P Demos, Iran R Roman, Parker Tichko, Caroline Palmer, Edward W Large

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Heart rate control by listening to light.Nature communications · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Musical neurodynamics and the 'inner voice'.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  7. Music as a scientific metaphor for mind and brain.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Synchrony and Reciprocity in Rhythmic Interaction.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Continuous Theta Burst to Supplementary Motor Area Modulates Groove.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Eleanor E Harding *Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-9625
Ji Chul Kim *Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8909-3340
Alexander P DemosDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Iran R RomanSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Parker TichkoDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Caroline PalmerDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4816-8067
Edward W LargeDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. edward.large@uconn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3909-3518

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A great deal of research in the neuroscience of music suggests that neural oscillations synchronize with musical stimuli. Although neural synchronization is a well-studied mechanism underpinning expectation, it has even more far-reaching implications for music. In this Perspective, we survey the literature on the neuroscience of music, including pitch, harmony, melody, tonality, rhythm, metre, groove and affect. We describe how fundamental dynamical principles based on known neural mechanisms can explain basic aspects of music perception and performance, as summarized in neural resonance theory. Building on principles such as resonance, stability, attunement and strong anticipation, we propose that people anticipate musical events not through predictive neural models, but because brain-body dynamics physically embody musical structure. The interaction of certain kinds of sounds with ongoing pattern-forming dynamics results in patterns of perception, action and coordination that we collectively experience as music. Statistically universal structures may have arisen in music because they correspond to stable states of complex, pattern-forming dynamical systems. This analysis of empirical findings from the perspective of neurodynamic principles sheds new light on the neuroscience of music and what makes music powerful.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionBrainMusicAcoustic StimulationHumans

Identifiers

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.