Influence​ ​of​ ​musical​ ​training​ ​on​ ​near​ ​spatial,​ ​temporal,​ ​and

spatiotemporal​ ​cognition​ ​in​ ​young​ ​adults.

Emma​ ​Carson​a​,​ ​Milena​ ​Engel​a​,​ ​Vita​ ​Filippini​a​,​ ​Zoe​ ​Spock​a​,​ ​Lucia​ ​Zemene​a
a​ ​
Department​ ​of​ ​Cognitive​ ​Neuroscience,​ ​University​ ​College​ ​Utrecht,​ ​Utrecht,​ ​The​ ​Netherlands

Keywords​:​ ​musical​ ​training,​ ​near​ ​space,​ ​spatiotemporal​ ​abilities,​ ​spatial​ ​alignment

Objective​: the aim of this research was to investigate how to enhance certain aspects of
cognition during brain development through the effects of early musical training in young
adults​ ​on​ ​spatiotemporal​ ​cognition,​ ​by​ ​means​ ​of​ ​a​ ​computerized​ ​object​ ​relocation​ ​task.

Abstract

According to existing literature, learning to play an instrument is a highly complex task that
involves the interaction of several modalities and higher-order cognitive functions,
including memory, improved attention, fine-motor skills, language, and spatial reasoning.
In this paper, the aim is to review in particular those pre-existing studies that focus on
spatio-temporal abilities of musical experts. Musical ability is also known to require
extensive integration between sensory input and motor output. Activation of the putative
dorsal stream network, involved in motor control, suggests that there is a place for spatial
processing in the perception of music during motor imagery and performance. This study
aimed at finding the difference between spatiotemporal abilities between musicians and
nonmusicians. This was done using an object relocation task incorporating spatial,
temporal and spatiotemporal dimensions. Percentage error of relocation was calculated,
and differences between musicians were calculated using a t-test. There were significant
results found in the singular temporal condition and the spatial aspect of the

0
spatiotemporal​ ​condition​ ​with​ ​musicians​ ​scoring​ ​better​ ​than​ ​nonmusicians.

1. Introduction
For the past 50 years, scientists, psychologists, physiologists and many other
scholars have been investigating the relationship between music and cognition. There have
been numerous advances in the subject in all fields, especially in neuroscience. Researchers
have investigated the interaction between musical training and general cognitive abilities,
differences in neural correlates between musicians and nonmusicians, and some more
specific​ ​domains,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​cognition​ ​and​ ​language​ ​with​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​musical​ ​ability.

1.1​ ​Music​ ​and​ ​cognitive​ ​abilities:​ ​general

The interest in the relationship between music and cognitive abilities was catalyzed
after a study by Rauscher and colleagues reported the “Mozart effect” (Rauscher, Shaw &
Ky, 1993). This study found a positive correlation between music listening and spatial
abilities. The popular opinion on this finding was that listening to music could make people
“smarter”. The scientific explanation was that listening to music temporarily increased
participants’ awareness and arousal, leading to better performance on some cognitive
abilities (Wang, Ossher & Reuter-Lorenz, 2015). After this study, numerous others were
conducted to find out more about the interaction between musical ability or training and
cognition. Merrett and Wilson found evidence of music-induced neuroplasticity, showing a
change in brain capacity in response to musical experience. The neuroplasticity refers to
“changes in the central nervous system as a result of experience or adaptation to
environmental demands” (Merrett & Wilson, 2011; 124). Neuroplasticity can imply
structural changes as well as functional, cellular and systemic changes; these include
modification of the gross brain anatomy, reorganization of networks and even changes in
individual cerebral cells. Merrett and Wilson also mention some prerequisites for
experience-induced neuroplasticity, such as repetition, intensity and difficulty of training
(Kleim & Jones, 2008; Green & Bavelier, 2008; cited in Merrett & Wilson, 2011). Musicians

1
have been extensively studied for a large part because playing music requires finely-tuned
motor movements, highly developed sensory processing, information integration to
correctly monitor and improve performance, and central executive and attentional
functions. This also assumes the integration of other cognitive functions into playing music,
such​ ​as​ ​memory,​ ​language,​ ​attention​ ​and​ ​spatial​ ​reasoning.
Wang and colleagues report recent investigations into the effect of music training on
cognitive abilities, rather than music listening. Much research reports higher levels of
thinking ‘outside the box’ and creativity, as well as better vocabulary, nonverbal reasoning,
and general intelligence (Wang, Ossher & Reuter-Lorenz, 2015). Music education has been
associated with improved attention, fine-motor skills, emotional expression, abstract
reasoning, language, mathematics skills and reading. All of this research describes
advantages in areas directly related to music performance, but also general
higher-cognitive abilities, suggesting a transfer effect between musical abilities and other
cognitive​ ​processes​ ​(Wang,​ ​Ossher​ ​&​ ​Reuter-Lorenz,​ ​2015).
A study by Hanna-Pladdy and MacKay investigated the relationship between
musical ability and cognitive aging, and whether musical sensorimotor and cognitive
abilities transfer to cognitive abilities across the lifespan, and influence cognitive aging.
They found that participants with 10+ years of musical experience performed better on
nonverbal memory, naming and executive process measuring tasks (Hanna-Pladdy &
MacKay, 2011). They based their hypothesis on the fact that musical training could shape
motor and cognitive functions in development, and that musicians showed advantages in
areas that deteriorate to forms of dementia during aging. Hanna-Pladdy and MacKay found
significant differences between musicians and nonmusicians on naming tasks, nonverbal
memory recall, visuomotor speed, visuospatial sequencing and cognitive flexibility. It
remains​ ​to​ ​be​ ​tested​ ​whether​ ​musical​ ​effects​ ​are​ ​domain-general​ ​or​ ​domain-specific.

1.2​ ​Neural​ ​correlates:​ ​structural​ ​and​ ​functional​ ​changes

Music processing is widespread throughout the brain, and important in many
functions. Musicians show different brain morphology, size and connectivity (Merrett &

2
Wilson, 2011), especially in the frontal, motor and auditory cortices. Indeed, Bangert &
Schlaug showed that the shape of the central sulcus could differentiate between musicians
and nonmusicians. In addition, the volume of the left inferior frontal gyrus has also been
associated with musician status (Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; cited in Merrett & Wilson, 2011).
The primary motor and sensory cortices, as well as the frontal cortex, are all involved in
music but also in higher-order cognitive processes, such as working memory, planning, and
general executive functions. Wang et ​al (2015) propose that music induces
neuroanatomical changes that could lead to these cognitive-behavioral differences. It is
clear that musical ability requires extensive neural networking for information integration
of sensory input with motor output and previously mentioned higher cognition processes
(Merrett​ ​&​ ​Wilson,​ ​2011).
Bengtsson and colleagues found a correlation between higher levels of fiber tract
organization and musical training, especially in the pyramidal tract for children. This
supports the idea that musical training can induce white matter plasticity (Bengtsson et al​.,
2005).
A study by Harris and de Jong found that improvising musicians showed activation
in right-hemisphere dorsal stream areas while listening to music, suggesting an amodal
spatial processing system useful in promoting pitch-to-space transformations to optimize
their virtual motor performance. A distribution of Motor Imagery-related activations was
observed in the auditory and premotor cortices of both hemispheres, the left parietal
cortex, and the bilateral cerebellum in all musicians (both improvising and
score-dependent). Attentive Listening also activated the bilateral premotor and auditory
cortices, suggesting a common processing mechanism for listening and imagery. Additional
activation of the putative dorsal stream network, which is involved in motor control,
suggests that there is a place for spatial processing in the perception of music during motor
imagery and performance. The study concludes that improvising musicians use a
“right-lateralized cerebral network dedicated to spatially-driven motor control” (Harris & de
Jong,​ ​2015;​ ​260).

3
1.3​ ​Music​ ​and​ ​spatial​ ​information
Finally, music has also been associated with certain spatial abilities that will be
described in this section. In 1997, Rauscher and colleagues examined whether music
training improves preschool children’s spatio-temporal reasoning and spatial recognition
abilities. The experimental group was composed of children receiving piano lessons, who
showed significantly more improvement than the control group on a spatio-temporal
reasoning task (Rauscher ​et al., ​1997). This shows that music training clearly impacts
spatio-temporal​ ​reasoning.
Bilhartz and colleagues (1999) also managed to show significant relationships
between early music instruction and spatio-temporal reasoning abilities. Building upon
Rauscher’s research, they identified differences between spatial recognition and
spatio-temporal reasoning: the former involves ​“identifying and mentally sorting items
based on shape, size, color, pattern” etc., while the latter is ​“a process that requires mentally
maintaining images without the assistance of a physical model and then transforming and
combining these images in ways that create a meaningful whole” (Bilhartz, Bruhn & Olson,
1999; 615-616). These abilities may be used and developed by musicians in the
performance​ ​of​ ​musical​ ​tasks.
A model was developed in 1990 by Leng et al. to explain the relationship between
music and spatio-temporal reasoning. This is the ​Trion model, ​which proposes that ​“the
ability to compare and find relationships among patterns is predicated by spatial–temporal
firing patterns of interconnected groups of neurons spread over large regions of the cortex”
(Leng ​et al., ​1990; cited in Bilhartz, Bruhn & Olson, 1999; 616). This hypothesizes that
musical activity necessitates the same neuronal firing patterns as spatio-temporal
reasoning does. The fact that these firing patterns can be enhanced through rehearsal and
learning, combined with the similarity of cortical pattern development for musical ability
and spatio-temporal reasoning, suggests that music exposure could increase spatial
reasoning. Finally, the study concluded that there was a relationship between early music
instruction and specific non-musical cognition. It is also important to note the link between
music ability and performance on the Bead Memory test, which measures visual imagery

4
and sequencing strategies. Both are distinct mental processes that can be linked to spatial
abilities​ ​(Leng​ ​et​ ​al.​,​ ​1990).
Two studies conducted by Hetland in 2000 found that active music instruction
(Hetland, 2000a) as well as listening to music (Hetland, 2000b) increased spatio-temporal
task performance. In addition, active music instruction also enhanced spatial memory,
spatial​ ​recognition,​ ​mental​ ​rotation​ ​and​ ​spatial​ ​visualization​ ​(Hetland,​ ​2000a).
In a study conducted in 2004 by Brochard et al., based on indirect evidence of
musicians making more efficient use of mental visual imagery, participants had to conduct
a mental imagery task where they had to keep a mental image of the cue to report the
relative position of the target. It was found that musicians were faster than nonmusicians
in all experimental conditions (mental imagery and perception tasks). Higher performance
on both perceptual and imagery tasks explains musicians’ increased scoring on visuospatial
tasks (Brochard, Dufour & Després, 2004). Another study measured the interaction
between music and mental rotation ability (Cupchik, Phillips & Hill, 2001). The authors
write that superior performance on mental rotation may be associated with holistic spatial
reasoning and a gestalt-like process. Their experimental design measured whether mental
rotation ability was related to the ability to distinguish inverse and auditorily presented
retrograde melodic permutations. Their results suggest that a common process underlies
visual and auditory judgments, a process sensitive to a ​“structure-preserving constraint,” i.e.
an​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​discriminate​ ​contour​ ​(Cupchik,​ ​Phillips​ ​&​ ​Hill,​ ​2001;​ ​379).
Wang and colleagues (2015) tested whether musicians showed longer sustained
attentional or vigilance abilities than nonmusicians. Attention was measured in two
domains: visual discrimination and temporal discrimination. They found that musicians
outperformed nonmusicians on a task measuring sustained attention based on temporal
discrimination. The researchers concluded that while music training is clearly linked to
higher temporal discrimination, this cannot be generalized to an increase in sustained
attention​ ​(Wang,​ ​Ossher​ ​&​ ​Reuter-Lorenz,​ ​2015).
Novembre et al. published a study in 2014 in which they demonstrated that first of
all, perceptual and motor processes become coupled in a musician’s brain as a result of

5
learning a specific sensorimotor task. Second, they hypothesize that this finding means
musicians predict their own and others’ actions better than nonmusicians, and are able to
form representations of others’ action and integrate them into their own. They conclude
that this perception-action coupling ​“extends to inter-individual contexts and is suitable for
use in inferring the goal of other agents or interacting with them” (Novembre & Keller, 2014;
8).
After being made aware of all of these advantages of early musical training on
cognitive abilities, there was also further investigation to identify activity domains at which
highly trained musicians might be worse. Research found that because musicians perform
such specific sensorimotor tasks and use so much of their brain capacity for it, they may
actually be worse in other domains, whether it be motor skills, auditory or visual
performance. Indeed, some studies (Fitts, 1954; Wiestler & Diedrichsen, 2013) suggested
that​ ​non​ ​highly-trained​ ​motor​ ​skill​ ​subjects​ ​may​ ​be​ ​better​ ​at​ ​learning​ ​new​ ​motor​ ​tasks.

1.4​ ​The​ ​present​ ​study

Based on previous research findings, our experimental design looked at the impact
of musical training throughout development on near spatial ability and spatio-temporal
abilities. The consulted literature already indicates that peripersonal space will be
enhanced in musicians, so the focus of investigation is a specific domain of cognitive ability
to ascertain whether or not musicians are better at spatial, temporal and spatiotemporal
discrimination than nonmusicians. The main objective of this study is to find out how best
to enhance certain aspects of cognitive abilities during brain development. We hypothesize
that there will be a positive influence of musical training on peripersonal spatial cognition
due to higher levels of spatial organization, based on previous research findings which
demonstrate structural and functional changes in musicians’ brains. We also hypothesize
that the musician group will complete the tasks with higher accuracy than the
nonmusicians. To this end, our experiment is centered around the question: To what extent
does musical training influence the near spatial, temporal and spatiotemporal cognition of
young​ ​adults​ ​in​ ​spatially-oriented​ ​tasks?

6
 2.​ ​Methods
2.1​ ​Research​ ​Participants
In the present study, a group of musicians was compared to a group of nonmusicians. All
participants attend to University College Utrecht, following a variety of curricula in
different departments and majors. Participants were recruited through an advertisement
on the students’ Facebook group and through a peer-to-peer network. Through this
method, 45 students filled out a questionnaire assessing their music history and musical
training. From these 45 students found by the means of this convenience sampling
technique, 10 people were selected that fulfilled the criteria of each group, musicians and
nonmusicians, to perform an experiment. The experiment was executed on three separate
days and participants received a compensation of one candy bar. A total of 20 students
participated in this experiment, of which 10 belonged to the musician group (2 males and 8
females)​ ​and​ ​10​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​non-musician​ ​group​ ​(3​ ​males​ ​and​ ​7​ ​females).
The non-musician group (n = 10) consisted of individuals who had never received
any formal music training, nor had they ever played a musical instrument. The musicians
group (n = 10) consisted of individuals who had at least 6 years of experience with playing
a musical instrument on a regular basis, had or are receiving formal training, and still
practice regularly (at least 4 hours a week). All individuals from the musicians group
started playing a musical instrument from an early age onwards, within a range of 5-10
years of age. For the musician group it was especially important that they started playing a
musical instrument at an early age, since, as has been suggested earlier, a stable
continuation of their practice supposedly has the effects on spatial-temporal reasoning
under​ ​investigation.
All participants had normal cognitive functioning, verbal skills and understanding,
and spoke a high level of English, although English was not everyone’s primary language.
Furthermore, all participants filled out an adapted and shortened version of the Music USE
(MUSE; Chin & Rickard, 2012) questionnaire combined with the Music Experience
Questionnaire​ ​(MEQ;​ ​Werner,​ ​2010)​ ​to​ ​assess​ ​their​ ​music​ ​history​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​experimentation.

7
2.2​ ​Materials​ ​and​ ​stimuli
The task used an object relocation computer program as described and used by Postma et
al. (2006), Kessels et al. (1999), and Postma et al. (1998). This program is a computer
adaptation of the classical object relocation memory test designed by Mandler, Seegmiller
& Day (1977). For the test, individuals had to remember which objects were on the table
and relocate them on an empty board. There was not so much of a temporal component,
since the order of the presentation of object did not matter. However, such a condition was
added by creating an entirely new stimulus based on temporal order, after which a
spatiotemporal​ ​condition​ ​was​ ​created​ ​by​ ​integrating​ ​the​ ​two​ ​into​ ​one​ ​stimulus.
The stimuli were presented on a 15-inch screen of a Windows Vista Business
OEMAct HP ​laptop. Stimuli had to be relocated by the use of a mouse and not by using the
touchpad of the laptop. Participants clicked on an object and then clicked on the right
position (a dot marking positions), to which objects had to be relocated either in temporal
order or spatially. There were three different task conditions: a purely temporal one, a
purely spatial one, and a combined spatio-temporal one. For each condition one practice
trial preceded two experimental trials. The order of the conditions always remained the
same, i.e. first the spatial condition was presented, then the temporal order condition, and
lastly the condition binding both domains. Accuracy scores were recorded by the computer
program,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​later​ ​converted​ ​into​ ​percentages​ ​of​ ​correct​ ​responses.
In the purely spatial presentation condition, seven objects were presented
simultaneously for seven seconds. Each object was at a different location, distributed
across a 16 x 16 cm square frame centred on the screen. During the test phase, all objects
were removed and an empty square frame with black dots demarcating the locations of the
previously presented objects. The seven objects were randomly placed above this square
frame.​ ​The​ ​participants​ ​had​ ​to​ ​relocate​ ​them​ ​to​ ​their​ ​correct​ ​previous​ ​positions.
In the purely temporal presentation condition, seven objects were shown serially,
always in the middle of a 16 x 16 cm square frame, which was centred on the screen. Each
object was presented for 1 second. After all seven objects were presented, a new screen
appeared with all the objects presented horizontally in a random order above a

8
one-dimensional horizontal array of seven dots. Participants had to place the object in the
correct temporal order onto the dots. The first object of appearance should have been
placed on the left most dot and the last object that was presented should be placed on the
right​ ​most​ ​dot.
The last condition was the fully combined spatio-temporal presentation condition.
In this condition seven objects were presented serially for seven seconds at different
locations on a 16 x 16 cm square frame centred on the screen. Again, a new, empty square
frame was shown, but now participants had to recall both the temporal as well as the
spatial order of the objects presented and place the objects in that correct order. For an
overview​ ​of​ ​the​ ​three​ ​conditions,​ ​see​ ​Figure​ ​1.
It has to be said that it was not possible to correct mistakes; when an individual
placed an object on a dot, it could not be moved to a different dot. Second, there was a
dependency between the performance of individual objects. This means that when one
objects was assigned to either the incorrect spatial or temporal order, at least one other
objects was also assigned to the wrong location or temporal slot. Furthermore, the objects
were all small familiar icons like animate items (rabbit or fish) or furniture, tools and
utensils, etc. Objects were on average 1 cm x 1 cm. For each trial different objects were
presented​ ​and​ ​a​ ​different​ ​spatial​ ​layout​ ​was​ ​used​ ​(Postma,​ ​2006).

2.3​ ​Procedure
Objects were selected and relocated by clicking on them and afterwards clicking on
the right location in order to either perform spatial relocation, temporal ordering, or both.
Once an object was placed on a specific dot, it could not be moved elsewhere. Before
starting the overall experiments, participants were given a clear account of what was
expected of them. They were instructed before the start of each condition as to which
aspects of the presentation they had to pay attention, either spatial location of an object,
temporal order of appearance, or both aspects, and what was expected during recall, such
as spatial location, temporal order, or both temporal order and spatial location. They were
instructed to attempt to perform as accurately and as quickly as possible. Furthermore,

9
after instruction, a practice trial was performed. For each condition there was one practice
trial, all containing seven objects, different from the ones in the actual trials. This was done
with the sole purpose of familiarising the participants with the task at hand. The
experimenter was present so they could ask questions afterwards, if anything still
remained unclear. If sufficient understanding was ensured, the experimenter would leave
the room to provide the participant with concentration. Two trials were completed for each
condition, thus the experiment comprised six trials in total. The order of the trials always
started with the spatial relocation condition, followed by the temporal order condition, and
completed with the binding condition. The fixed order of conditions was chosen to ensure
participants to start with the supposedly easiest condition, namely the purely spatial
condition, and to end with the most difficult spatiotemporal condition, as this supposedly
entails a higher cognitive load. There were no time limitations for the recall phase and the
whole​ ​experiment​ ​lasted​ ​approximately​ ​15​ ​minutes.

Figure 1​: the displays of the presentation phases in above order: the purely spatial, purely
temporal,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​spatiotemporal​ ​presentation​ ​with​ ​combined​ ​recall.

10
2.4​ ​Data​ ​analysis​ ​SPSS
For data analysis, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and SPSS 24 were used. Measured
coordinates of object placements were recoded to dummies by comparing actual target
location coordinates with the coordinates of the relocated target. Correct answers were
therefore given when the presented object location corresponded with the participant’s
relocation decision in the test phase. In the temporal order condition, this calculation was
held up by recoding both the spatial placement (coordinates in columns) and the temporal
placement (by comparing the participants’ ordering from left to right with the serial object
presentation, see Figure 1). Scoring correct on the binding condition therefore required
both the spatial answer and the temporal judgement to align. Percentages of correct
placement of objects were computed per condition and compared in Excel. Whe then
exported these data into variables in SPSS. An independent t-test was conducted to
compare means between musicians and nonmusicians and their percentage scores in all
three conditions testing object relocation skills: correctly spatially-placed (scorrect),
temporally-placed (tcorrect), correctly spatially-placed within the spatiotemporal binding
condition (stscorrect), correctly temporally-placed within the binding condition
(sttcorrect),​ ​and​ ​correctly​ ​placed​ ​in​ ​both​ ​domains​ ​within​ ​the​ ​binding​ ​condition​ ​(stcorrect).

3.​ ​Results
As can be observed in Table 1, results on the spatial and temporal relocation tasks
were generally and expectedly higher than in the spatiotemporal binding task. This could
be attributed to the higher cognitive load on the working memory this third condition
entailed. The t-test for equality of means yielded significant differences between musicians
and nonmusicians in their scores for both the spatial object relocation condition and the
spatial domain within the spatiotemporal binding condition. Equal variances were
assumed, since Levene’s test was insignificant for both conditions (scorrect: F(18,2) = 1.05,
p = .319; stscorrect: F(18,2) = 2.446, ​p = .135). The spatial object relocation score showed a
weak but significant difference between groups, t = 2.099, p = .05. The significant difference

11
between groups within the spatial domain of the binding condition was slightly stronger,
with​ ​t​ ​=​ ​2.790,​ ​p​ ​=​ ​.012.

Std.​ ​Error
musician N Mean Std.​ ​Deviation Mean

scorrect musician 10 67,1420 14,62603 4,62516

nonmusician 10 51,4280 18,61805 5,88754

tcorrect musician 10 69,5230 19,46634 6,15580

nonmusician 10 53,8020 13,65996 4,31966

stscorrect musician 10 52,7840 15,25284 4,82337

nonmusician 10 36,6680 10,05213 3,17876

sttcorrect musician 10 46,6660 22,31084 7,05531

nonmusician 10 32,3820 10,71875 3,38957

stcorrect musician 10 29,0480 13,91762 4,40114

nonmusician 10 17,6370 10,81401 3,41969

Table 1: ​Results displaying the mean percentage scores of participant groups in the
different object relocation conditions. At first sight, a consistent advantage of musicians
compared​ ​to​ ​nonmusicians​ ​is​ ​given​ ​across​ ​tasks.

12
Figure 2: ​A clear pattern of higher percentages of correct scores arises within musicians
compared to nonmusicians - as the results however show, musicians do significantly better
in​ ​the​ ​spatial​ ​condition​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​spatial​ ​dimension​ ​within​ ​the​ ​binding​ ​condition.

Levene's​ ​T. t-test​ ​for​ ​Equality​ ​of​ ​Means

95%​ ​Confidence
Interval​ ​of​ ​the
Sig. Std. Difference
(2-tai Mean Error
F Sig t df led) Diff. Diff. Lower Upper

scorrect Equal 1,05 ,319 -2,099 18 ,050 -15,714 7,487 -31,44 ,015
v.​ ​ass.

Equal -2,099 17 ,051 -15,714 7,487 -31,50 ,079

v. not
ass.

stscorrect Equal 2,44 ,135 -2,790 18 ,012 -16,116 5,776 -28,25 -3,97
v.​ ​ass.

Equal -2,790 15 ,013 -16,116 5,776 -28,38 -3,84

v. not
ass.

13
Table 2: ​An independent t-test showing outcomes of the two variables scorrect and
stscorrect​ ​that​ ​yielded​ ​significant​ ​differences​ ​between​ ​groups.

4.​ ​Discussion​ ​and​ ​Conclusion

Our results confirmed expectancies concerning the overall increased performance of
musicians in object relocation tasks. They furthermore verified the empirical assumption
that cognitive skills in the spatial domain would exceed the measurements of temporal
object location memory skills. There are, however, several limitations that should be
mentioned, which might have influenced the outcomes. Based on those, we provide future
research efforts with several additional aspects that should be taken into consideration as
beneficial​ ​for​ ​the​ ​reliability​ ​of​ ​outcomes.
Music exposure could be used to strengthen spatial reasoning, especially with early
exposure in young children (Bilhartz, Bruhn & Olson, 1999). Thus, the earlier in life
exposure to music or playing a musical instrument is established, the more significant the
effects on spatial cognition will be. Not all participants of this experiment started playing an
instrument at the same age (indications ranged from ages 5-10), meaning that some
experienced earlier exposure than others. However, early exposure alone does not suffice,
since an individual should also continue playing a musical instrument for a longer period of
time,​ ​before​ ​the​ ​effects​ ​of​ ​musical​ ​training​ ​on​ ​cognition​ ​can​ ​take​ ​place.
The sample of participants was small (N=20) drawn from a narrow population of
academic students holding a high socioeconomic status within upper middle and higher
classes. Results ,therefore, do not represent the general population reliably. For further
research, we therefore suggest that it would be more profitable to increase the number of
participants as well as look at to what degree demographic and familial factors impact the
connection​ ​between​ ​music​ ​and​ ​spatial-temporal​ ​reasoning​ ​(Bilhartz,​ ​Bruhn​ ​&​ ​Olson,​ ​1999).
An interesting aspect to test in the future is also a comparison of the effects of the type of
musical training within musicians. People who could afford years of professional training
might experience different effects on their spatial cognition than people who could not
afford lessons and only played by themselves. The self-learning aspect of those individuals
might​ ​have​ ​a​ ​different​ ​impact​ ​on​ ​their​ ​spatial​ ​cognition.

14
 We did not match the participants for sex to establish an equilibrium ​of males and
females. This would have complicated the sampling process due to a general
overrepresentation of females on the campus of University College Utrecht. However, the
participants were age-matched, since they were all between the age of 21 and 23,
increasing the possibility of equal levels of musical exposure and training within the
musician​ ​group.
Another aspect we have to take into consideration is the fact that participants might
not have actually had the musical practice they indicated. Although we handed out a
survey and asked participants for their years of musical training, there was little we could
do to verify if their indication was undoubtedly true. This type of verification could be
improved​ ​in​ ​future​ ​research.
Further research on the matter should also formally assess general cognitive
abilities, handedness, and language skills of the participants, to rule out possible deficits or
covariates​ ​influencing​ ​the​ ​results​ ​(Hanna-Pladdy​ ​&​ ​MacKay,​ ​2010).
Some of the musicians within the sample played more than one instrument. We
looked at the possibility of the general influence of playing an instrument on spatial
cognition. However, enhancement of performance could have occurred due to the
combined benefits on spatial skills that musicians playing many instruments might gain,
instead of the effect of just one. This aspect should therefore also be considered in further
research.
We furthermore did not take into account the specific type of instrument
participants played. Not every instrument, for example the digeridoo or the alphorn,
requires a spatial transformation. Singing was excluded from being admitted as an
instrument, even though participants who sang had formal musical training. Supposedly,
they​ ​did​ ​not​ ​have​ ​to​ ​apply​ ​their​ ​musical​ ​knowledge​ ​into​ ​the​ ​spatial-temporal​ ​domain.
While we assumed, based on our literature, that musicians will outperform nonmusicians
in all three conditions, the results show otherwise. One of the reasons why musicians were
not significantly better in the temporal aspect within the spatial-temporal condition could
be because we did not include auditory stimuli. Previous research suggests that during the

15
performance of highly-skilled musicians, several modalities have to be processed with high
temporal precision (Herholtz & Zatorre, 2012). This, however, includes the interaction
between auditory input and motor output (Herholtz & Zatorre, 2012). Therefore, we
hypothesize that the absence of auditory stimuli might have been behaviourally relevant in
the​ ​performance​ ​of​ ​musicians​ ​during​ ​the​ ​spatial-temporal​ ​task.
In addition, other studies show that a highly trained motor-skill is specified by its
ability to produce consistently one class of movement from among several alternative
movement classes and leads to the average brain activity for motor skills to decrease
(Wiestler & Diedrichsen, 2013). In other words, while musicians might be very trained in
specific-temporo-spatially predefined movement patterns, their neuronal networking
might be too specific and take over a number of alternative movement classes. Ultimately,
what this suggests is that the musicians in our case might have been used to specific motor
outputs that require a different temporal-spatial binding, which in turn could be a reason
for​ ​the​ ​insignificant​ ​results​ ​in​ ​this​ ​task.
Finally, it remains fairly difficult to assess whether or not the overall performance of
musicians was influenced by task-specific spatial training and difficulty in memory
construction or if motor degradation also had an impact on our results. While there are
many studies that suggest that specifically trained motor skill acquisition can facilitate
other motor control, there are also studies that suggest the opposite. Altenmüller and
colleagues indicate that over time, motor skill degradation can occur in highly trained
motor movements due to fatigue, overuse and performance stress. This phenomenon is
called Musician’s dystonia (Altenmüller et al., 2015). We assume, however, that motor
degradation was not apparent in our research as all participants were still fairly young.
However, further research in this field is crucial and could bring about more medical
treatment and development in maximizing motor skill acquisition and minimiz​ing
degradation.
Another​ ​limitation​ ​comprises​ ​our​ ​disregard​ ​of​ ​other​ ​activities​ ​that​ ​might​ ​train​ ​non-
musicians in particular motor and memory skills. An example comparable to the
fine-grained motor skills learned by playing an instrument would be extensive training of

16
‘gaming’, - playing action-videogames like egoshooters - which has been shown to benefit
basic motor skills. As Borecki et al. hypothesized, factors influencing motor task
performances like speed, aiming and precision are enhanced in gamers. Indeed, when
assessing fine motor skills, video gamers displayed higher accuracy in hand-arm
coordination and faster finger movements (Borecki ​et al​., 2013). Furthermore, Green and
Bavelier provided empirical results and claim that playing action-videogames on a regular
basis enhances visual acuity and a general increase in the spatial resolution of vision
(Green & Bavelier, 2007). This in turn might benefit coding of visual information in the
visuospatial sketchpad of the working memory, possibly leading to a larger capacity of
information. Therefore, gamers might develop the ability to hold visual snapshots with a
higher spatial resolution than musicians. Donohue et al. tested video gamers with extensive
experience in a temporal-order judgement task and found that beyond the visual domain,
gamers are better at determining the temporal sequence of stimuli stimulating
multisensory​ ​integration​ ​areas​ ​(Donohue​ ​et​ ​al​.,​ ​2010).

References
Altenmüller,​ ​E.,​ ​Ioannou,​ ​C.​ ​I.,​ ​&​ ​Lee,​ ​A.​ ​(2015).​ ​Apollo's​ ​curse:​ ​neurological​ ​causes​ ​of​ ​motor

17
 impairments​ ​in​ ​musicians.​ ​Progress​ ​in​ ​brain​ ​research​,​ ​217​,​ ​89-106.

Bangert,​ ​M.,​ ​&​ ​Schlaug,​ ​G.​ ​(2006).​ ​Specialization​ ​of​ ​the​ ​specialized​ ​in​ ​features​ ​of​ ​external

human​ ​brain​ ​morphology.​​ ​Eur​ ​J​ ​Neurosci,​ ​24​(6),​ ​1832-1834.

Bilhartz,​ ​T.​ ​D.,​ ​Bruhn,​ ​R.​ ​A.,​ ​&​ ​Olson,​ ​J.​ ​E.​ ​(1999).​ ​The​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​early​ ​music​ ​training​ ​on​ ​child

cognitive development. ​Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology​, ​20​(4),

615-636.

Bengtsson,​ ​S.​ ​L.,​ ​Nagy,​ ​Z.,​ ​Skare,​ ​S.,​ ​Forsman,​ ​L.,​ ​Forssberg,​ ​H.,​ ​&​ ​Ullén,​ ​F.​ ​(2005).​ ​"Extensive

piano​ ​practicing​ ​has​ ​regionally​ ​specific​ ​effects​ ​on​ ​white​ ​matter​ ​development."

Nature​ ​neuroscience,​ ​8​(9),​ ​1148-1150.

Borecki,​ ​L.,​ ​Tolstych,​ ​K.,​ ​&​ ​Pokorski,​ ​M.​ ​(2013).​ ​Computer​ ​games​ ​and​ ​fine​ ​motor​ ​skills.​ ​In

Respiratory​ ​Regulation-Clinical​ ​Advances​ ​(pp.​ ​343-348).​ ​Springer​ ​Netherlands.

Brochard,​ ​R.,​ ​Dufour,​ ​A.,​ ​&​ ​Despres,​ ​O.​ ​(2004).​ ​Effect​ ​of​ ​musical​ ​expertise​ ​on​ ​visuospatial

abilities:​ ​Evidence​ ​from​ ​reaction​ ​times​ ​and​ ​mental​ ​imagery.​ ​Brain​ ​and​ ​cognition​,

54​(2),​ ​103-109.

Chin,​ ​T.,​ ​&​ ​Rickard,​ ​N.​ ​(2012).​ ​The​ ​Music​ ​USE​ ​(MUSE)​ ​Questionnaire:​ ​an​ ​instrument​ ​to

measure​ ​engagement​ ​in​ ​music.​ ​Music​ ​Perception,​ ​29​(4),​ ​429-446.

Cupchik,​ ​G.​ ​C.,​ ​Phillips,​ ​K.,​ ​&​ ​Hill,​ ​D.​ ​S.​ ​(2001).​ ​Shared​ ​Processes​ ​in​ ​Spatial​ ​Rotation​ ​and

Musical​ ​Permutation.​ ​Brain​ ​and​ ​Cognition,​ ​46,​ ​373-382.

Donohue,​ ​S.​ ​E.,​ ​Woldorff,​ ​M.​ ​G.,​ ​&​ ​Mitroff,​ ​S.​ ​R.​ ​(2010).​ ​Video​ ​game​ ​players​ ​show​ ​more

precise​ ​multisensory​ ​temporal​ ​processing​ ​abilities.​ ​Attention,​ ​Perception,​ ​&

Psychophysics​,​ ​72​(4),​ ​1120-1129.

Furuya,​ ​S.,​ ​&​ ​Altenmüller,​ ​E.​ ​(2015).​ ​Acquisition​ ​and​ ​reacquisition​ ​of​ ​motor​ ​coordination​ ​in

18
 musicians.​ ​Annals​ ​of​ ​the​ ​New​ ​York​ ​Academy​ ​of​ ​Sciences​,​ ​1337​(1),​ ​118-124.

Gaser,​ ​C.,​ ​&​ ​Schlaug,​ ​G.​ ​(2003).​ ​Brain​ ​structures​ ​differ​ ​between​ ​musicians​ ​and

non-musicians.​​ ​J​ ​Neurosci,​ ​23​(27),​ ​9240-9245.

Green,​ ​C.​ ​S.,​ ​&​ ​Bavelier,​ ​D.​ ​(2007).​ ​Action-video-game​ ​experience​ ​alters​ ​the​ ​spatial

resolution​ ​of​ ​vision.​ ​Psychological​ ​science​,​ ​18​(1),​ ​88-94.

Green,​ ​C.​ ​S.,​ ​&​ ​Bavelier,​ ​D.​ ​(2008).​ ​Exercising​ ​your​ ​brain:​ ​a​ ​review​ ​of​ ​human​ ​brain​ ​plasticity

and​ ​training-induced​ ​learning.​ ​Psychol​ ​Aging,​ ​23​(4),​ ​692-701.

Hanna-Pladdy,​ ​B.,​ ​&​ ​MacKay,​ ​A.​ ​(2011).​ ​The​ ​relation​ ​between​ ​instrumental​ ​musical​ ​activity

and​ ​cognitive​ ​aging.​ ​Neuropsychology​,​ ​25​(3),​ ​378.

Harris,​ ​R.,​ ​&​ ​de​ ​Jong,​ ​B.​ ​M.​ ​(2015).​ ​Differential​ ​parietal​ ​and​ ​temporal​ ​contributions​ ​to​ ​music

perception​ ​in​ ​improvising​ ​and​ ​score-dependent​ ​musicians,​ ​an​ ​fMRI​ ​study.​ ​Brain

research​,​ ​1624​,​ ​253-264.

Hetland,​ ​L.​ ​(2000a).​ ​Learning​ ​to​ ​make​ ​music​ ​enhances​ ​spatial​ ​reasoning.​ ​Journal​ ​of

Aesthetic​ ​Education​.​ ​34​(3/4),​ ​179–238.

Hetland,​ ​L.​ ​(2000b).​ ​Listening​ ​to​ ​music​ ​enhances​ ​spatial-temporal​ ​reasoning:​ ​Evidence​ ​for

the​ ​“Mozart-Effect.”​ ​The​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​Aesthetic​ ​Education​,​ ​34​,​ ​105-148.

Kleim,​ ​J.​ ​A.,​ ​&​ ​Jones,​ ​T.​ ​A.​ ​(2008).​ ​Principles​ ​of​ ​experience-dependent​ ​neural​ ​plasticity:

Implications​ ​for​ ​rehabilitation​ ​after​ ​brain​ ​damage.​ ​J​ ​Speech​ ​Lang​ ​Hear​ ​Res,​ ​51​(1),

225-239.

Leng,​ ​X.,​ ​Shaw,​ ​G.​ ​L.,​ ​&​ ​Wright,​ ​E.​ ​(1990).​ ​Coding​ ​of​ ​musical​ ​structure​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Trion​ ​model

of​ ​cortex.​ ​Music​ ​Perception,​ ​8​,​ ​49–62.

Merrett,​ ​D.​ ​L.​ ​&​ ​Wilson,​ ​S.​ ​J.,​ ​“Music​ ​and​ ​Neural​ ​Plasticity”.​ ​In​ ​Lifelong​ ​Engagement​ ​with

19
 Music,​ ​edited​ ​by​ ​N.​ ​S.​ ​Rickard​ ​and​ ​K.​ ​McFerran​ ​(Nova​ ​Science​ ​Publisher,​ ​Inc.​ ​2011),

123-162.

Novembre,​ ​G.,​ ​&​ ​Keller,​ ​P.​ ​E.​ ​(2014).​ ​A​ ​conceptual​ ​review​ ​on​ ​action-perception​ ​coupling​ ​in

the​ ​musicians’​ ​brain:​ ​what​ ​is​ ​it​ ​good​ ​for?.​ ​Frontiers​ ​in​ ​human​ ​neuroscience​,​ ​8​,​ ​603.

Postma,​ ​A.,​ ​Van​ ​Asselen,​ ​M.,​ ​Keuper,​ ​O.,​ ​Wester,​ ​A.,​ ​&​ ​Kessels,​ ​R.​ ​(2006).​ ​Spatial​ ​and

Temporal​ ​Order​ ​Memory​ ​in​ ​Korsakoff​ ​Patients.​ ​Journal​ ​of​ ​International

Neuropsychological​ ​Society​,​ ​12​,​ ​327-336.

Rauscher,​ ​F.​ ​H.,​ ​Shaw,​ ​G.​ ​L.,​ ​&​ ​Ky,​ ​K.​ ​N.​ ​(1993).​ ​Music​ ​and​ ​spatial​ ​task​ ​performance.​ ​Nature,

365​,​ ​611.

Rauscher,​ ​F.​ ​H.,​ ​Shaw,​ ​G.​ ​L.,​ ​Levine,​ ​L.​ ​J.,​ ​Wright,​ ​E.​ ​L.,​ ​Dennis,​ ​W.​ ​R.,​ ​&​ ​Newcomb,​ ​R.​ ​L.

(1997).​ ​Music​ ​training​ ​causes​ ​long-term​ ​enhancement​ ​of​ ​preschool​ ​children's

spatial-temporal​ ​reasoning.​ ​Neurological​ ​Research​,​ ​19​,​ ​2-8.

Wang,​ ​X.,​ ​Ossher,​ ​L.,​ ​&​ ​Reuter-Lorenz,​ ​P.​ ​A.​ ​(2015).​ ​Examining​ ​the​ ​relationship​ ​between

skilled​ ​music​ ​training​ ​and​ ​attention.​ ​Consciousness​ ​and​ ​Cognition,​ ​36,​ ​169-179.

Werner,​ ​P.,​ ​Swope,​ ​A.,​ ​&​ ​Heide,​ ​F.​ ​(2006).​ ​The​ ​Music​ ​Experience​ ​Questionnaire:

Developments​ ​and​ ​Correlates.​ ​The​ ​journal​ ​of​ ​Psychology,​ ​140​(4),​ ​329-345.

Wiestler,​ ​T.,​ ​&​ ​Diedrichsen,​ ​J.​ ​(2013).​ ​Skill​ ​learning​ ​strengthens​ ​cortical​ ​representations​ ​of

motor​ ​sequences.​ ​Elife​,​ ​2​,​ ​e00801.

Zatorre,​ ​R.​ ​J.,​ ​Chen,​ ​J.​ ​L.,​ ​&​ ​Penhune,​ ​V.​ ​B.​ ​(2007).​ ​When​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​plays​ ​music:

auditory–motor​ ​interactions​ ​in​ ​music​ ​perception​ ​and​ ​production.​ ​Nature​ ​reviews

neuroscience​,​ ​8​(7),​ ​547-558.

20