Explaining the association between music training and reading in adults.
Abstract
We sought to clarify whether the positive association between music lessons and reading ability is explained better by shared resources for processing pitch and temporal information, or by general cognitive abilities. Participants were native and nonnative speakers of English with varying levels of music training. We measured reading ability (comprehension and speed), music-perception skills (melody and rhythm), general cognitive ability (nonverbal intelligence, short-term memory, and working memory), and socioeconomic status (SES; family income, parents' education). Reading ability was associated positively with music training, English as a native language, and general cognitive ability. The association between reading and music training was significant after SES, native language, and music-perception skills were controlled. After general cognitive abilities were held constant, however, there was no longer an association between reading and music training. These findings suggest that the association between reading ability and music training is a consequence of general cognitive abilities. (PsycINFO Database Record
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The correlation between amount of music training and reading ability in adults disappears when domain-general cognitive skills are controlled for.
“Swaminathan, Schellenberg, and Venkatesan (2018) demonstrate that the correlation between amount of music training and reading ability in adults disappears when domain-general cognitive skills are controlled for.”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Swaminathan, Schellenberg, and Venkatesan (2018)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
- Authors
- Swaminathan, S., Schellenberg, E. G., & Venkatesan, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 992-999
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2790116138
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Music › Diverse Music Education Insights
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- musical training, reading skills, general intelligence, pitch processing, temporal processing, music perception, reading comprehension, reading speed, socioeconomic status, mother tongue, nonverbal intelligence, working memory, short-term memory, adults
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Intelligence, Learning, Male, Music, Pitch Perception, Reading, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Perception, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review