Piano training enhances the neural processing of pitch and improves speech perception in Mandarin-speaking children
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Musical training is beneficial to speech processing, but this transfer’s underlying brain mechanisms are unclear. Using pseudorandomized group assignments with 74 4- to 5-year-old Mandarin-speaking children, we showed that, relative to an active control group which underwent reading training and a no-contact control group, piano training uniquely enhanced cortical responses to pitch changes in music and speech (as lexical tones). These neural enhancements further generalized to early literacy skills: Compared with the controls, the piano-training group also improved behaviorally in auditory word discrimination, which was correlated with their enhanced neural sensitivities to musical pitch changes. Piano training thus improves children’s common sound processing, facilitating certain aspects of language development as much as, if not more than, reading instruction.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Nan et al. (2018) have found no significant effect of music training on any two music-related measures and no effect at all on the examined non-music outcome measures.
“Nan et al. (2018) have found no significant effect of music training on any two music-related measures and no effect at all on the examined non-music outcome measures.”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Nan et al. (2018)
The Discussion reports significantly enlarged neural responses to musical pitch after piano training, contrary to the claim of no effect on music-related measures. It also reports improved auditory word discrimination, a non-music outcome. The paper found no training effect on general cognitive measures such as IQ, attention, and working memory, but that does not extend to all non-music outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNan et al.'s (2018) study corroborates the idea that the impact of music training on cognitive/academic skills is slim to null.
“Therefore, this study corroborates the idea that the impact of music training on cognitive/academic skills is slim to null.”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Nan et al. (2018)
The Discussion (page not provided) reports no effect of piano training on general cognitive measures: IQ, attention, and working memory improved similarly in all three groups. But the paper also reports improved word discrimination, described as relevant to early literacy, so it does not support a slim-to-null impact across cognitive and academic skills generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNan et al. (2018) reports a barely significant effect (p = .044) in an auditory task obtained with an ANOVA performed on the mean pre-post-test gains.
“The paper reports a barely significant effect [p = .044] in an auditory task that is obtained with an ANOVA performed on the mean pre-post-test gains.”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Nan et al. (2018)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.191355898 · Cited by 2,814 · see citing works
When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 · Cited by 2,076 · cited 2× · see citing works
“According to Barnett and Ceci (37), the observed language effects in the current study could be attributable to near transfer that usually occurs between highly similar domains such as music and language, in contrast to far transfer, which occurs in dissimilar contexts or domains.”
BackgroundBrain mechanisms in early language acquisition
Kuhl, P. K. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Patel AD (2008) Music, Language, and the Brain (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
- Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Percept Psychophys 16:143-149.
- Anderson RC, et al. (2002) Shared-book reading in China. Chinese Children's Reading Acquisition (Springer, Boston), pp 131-155.
- Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K (2007) The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clin Neurophysiol 118: 2544-2590.
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
Román-Caballero, R., Vadillo, M. A., Trainor, L. J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100436 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nan, Y., Liu, L., Geiser, E., Shu, H., Gong, C. C., Dong, Q., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Desimone, R.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Normal University (CN)
- McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
- State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, International Data Group (IDG)/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, 100875 Beijing, China;
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2018-06-25
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 28
- Pages
- E6630-E6639
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC6048476
- OpenAlex
- W2810177292
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 5.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- IRIS (submittedVersion)
- SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- 973 Program (2014CB846103)
- National science foundation of china (31471066, 31521063, 31221003)
- 111 Project (Bo7008)
- Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Z151100003915122)
- InterDiscipline Research Funds of Beijing Normal Univeristy (NA)
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017xtcx04)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- piano practice, musical training, speech perception, Mandarin-speaking children, lexical tone, pitch processing, consonant discrimination, vowel discrimination, reading training, early childhood language development, event-related potentials
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Child, Child, Preschool, China, Cognition, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Music, Pitch Perception, Speech Perception
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
