Structural connectivity predicts sequential processing differences in music perception ability

Abstract

To relate individual differences in music perception ability with whole brain white matter connectivity, we scanned a group of 27 individuals with varying degrees of musical training and assessed musical ability in sensory and sequential music perception domains using the Profile of Music Perception Skills‐Short version (PROMS‐S). Sequential processing ability was estimated by combining performance on tasks for Melody, Standard Rhythm, Embedded Rhythm, and Accent subscores while sensory processing ability was ascertained via tasks of Tempo, Pitch, Timbre, and Tuning. Controlling for musical training, gender, and years of training, network‐based statistics revealed positive linear associations between total PROMS‐S scores and increased interhemispheric fronto‐temporal and parieto‐frontal white matter connectivity, suggesting a distinct segregated structural network for music perception. Secondary analysis revealed two subnetworks for sequential processing ability, one comprising ventral fronto‐temporal and subcortical regions and the other comprising dorsal fronto‐temporo‐parietal regions. A graph‐theoretic analysis to characterize the structural network revealed a positive association of modularity of the whole brain structural connectome with the d′ total score. In addition, the nodal degree of the right posterior cingulate cortex also showed a significant positive correlation with the total d′ score. Our results suggest that a distinct structural network of connectivity across fronto‐temporal, cerebellar, and cerebro‐subcortical regions is associated with music processing abilities and the right posterior cingulate cortex mediates the connectivity of this network.

Stream segregation, musical abilities and the development of speech perception in noise

“…Differences in how musical expertise is defined across studies might also underlie some of the contradictory findings reported in the literature. Indeed, the dichotomous categorization of individuals into musicians versus non-musicians may not reflect the complete range of musical abilities within the population (Law et al, 2012;Rajan et al, 2021;Swaminathan & Schellenberg, 2021). Some individuals may have good musical perceptual skills even in the absence of formal musical training (Mankel et al, 2018).…”

The Tapping-PROMS: A test for the assessment of sensorimotor rhythmic abilities

“…In order to relate performance on production tasks to performance on perceptual tasks we used stimuli from the tempo and rhythm subtests of the Profile of Music Perception Skills (PROMS; Law and Zentner, 2012 ); thus, the name “Tapping-PROMS.” The PROMS exists in several versions that have all been shown to be both valid and reliable ( Law and Zentner, 2012 ; Zentner and Strauss, 2017 ; Zentner and Gingras, 2019 ). Recent evidence includes demonstrations of large differences between musicians and non-musicians on Mini-PROMS test scores (e.g., Bosch et al, 2020 ; Sun et al, 2021 ), as well significant associations of PROMS-S scores with brain activation patterns involved in music processing ( Rajan et al, 2021 ). Using perception and production stimuli from the same test source ensures that perceptual and production skills can be directly related to each other.…”

Online assessment of musical ability in 10 minutes: Development and validation of the Micro-PROMS

“…The PROMS exists in several versions that have all been shown to be both valid and reliable (Law & Zentner, 2012 ; Zentner & Gingras, 2019 ; Zentner & Strauss, 2017 ). Recent evidence includes demonstrations of large differences between musicians and nonmusicians on Mini-PROMS test scores (e.g., Sun et al, 2021 ; Vanden Bosch der Nederlanden et al, 2020 ), as well significant associations of PROMS-S scores with brain activation patterns involved in music processing (Rajan et al, 2021 ). Table 1 provides an overview of key characteristics of these versions, along with other recently developed musical ability tests.…”