CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 703Neuroscience and Music PerceptionNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology Research

Why would Musical Training Benefit the Neural Encoding of Speech? The OPERA Hypothesis

Open access
Patel, Aniruddh D.·2011·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00142PMC PMC3128244
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Mounting evidence suggests that musical training benefits the neural encoding of speech. This paper offers a hypothesis specifying why such benefits occur. The "OPERA" hypothesis proposes that such benefits are driven by adaptive plasticity in speech-processing networks, and that this plasticity occurs when five conditions are met. These are: (1) Overlap: there is anatomical overlap in the brain networks that process an acoustic feature used in both music and speech (e.g., waveform periodicity, amplitude envelope), (2) Precision: music places higher demands on these shared networks than does speech, in terms of the precision of processing, (3) Emotion: the musical activities that engage this network elicit strong positive emotion, (4) Repetition: the musical activities that engage this network are frequently repeated, and (5) Attention: the musical activities that engage this network are associated with focused attention. According to the OPERA hypothesis, when these conditions are met neural plasticity drives the networks in question to function with higher precision than needed for ordinary speech communication. Yet since speech shares these networks with music, speech processing benefits. The OPERA hypothesis is used to account for the observed superior subcortical encoding of speech in musically trained individuals, and to suggest mechanisms by which musical training might improve linguistic reading abilities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00142

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These findings convincingly refute all the theories claiming that music training causes improvements in any domain-general cognitive skill or academic achievement.

    “We can thus conclude that these findings convincingly refute all the theories claiming that music training causes improvements in any domain-general cognitive skill or academic achievement (e.g., Moreno et al., 2011; Patel, 2011; Saarikivi et al., 2019; Tierney & Kraus, 2013).”

    From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Patel, 2011

    The citation appears to identify Patel’s paper as an example of a theory predicting benefits from musical training, rather than to attribute the citing authors’ conclusion about refutation to Patel. In “Putting Opera to Work: Musical Training and Linguistic Reading Skills,” Patel discusses evidence of improved reading abilities after music lessons, and the Conclusion says OPERA predicts which training could benefit reading skills. The paper does not establish a broader claim about domain-general cognitive skills or academic achievement generally. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. Abrams D. A. Nicol T. Zecker S. Kraus N. (2008). Right-hemisphere auditory cortex is dominant for coding syllable patterns in speech. J. Neurosci. 28, 3958– 3965 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0187-08.2008 18400895 PMC2713056 · DOI
  2. Abrams D. A. Nicol T. Zecker S. Kraus N. (2009). Abnormal cortical processing of the syllable rate of speech in poor readers. J. Neurosci. 29, 7686– 7693 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5242-08.2009 19535580 PMC2763585 · DOI
  3. Ahissar M. Nahum M. Nelken I. Hochstein S. (2009). Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 285– 299 10.1098/rstb.2008.0253 18986968 PMC2674477 · DOI
  4. Bajo V. M. Nodal F. R. Moore D. R. King A. J. (2010). The descending corticocollicular pathway mediates learning-induced auditory plasticity. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 252– 260 10.1038/nn0810-913 PMC3634157 20037578 · DOI
  5. Banai K. Hornikel J. Skoe E. Nicol T. Zecker S. Kraus N. (2009). Reading and subcortical auditory function. Cereb. Cortex 19, 2699– 2707 10.1093/cercor/bhp024 19293398 PMC2758683 · DOI
  6. Bendor D. Wang X. (2005). The neuronal representation of pitch in primate auditory cortex. Nature 436, 1161– 1165 10.1038/nature03867 16121182 PMC1780171 · DOI
  7. Bhatara A. Tirovolas A. K. Duan L. M. Levy B. Levitin D. J. (2011). Perception of emotional expression in musical performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 921– 934 10.1037/a0021922 21261418 · DOI
  8. Bidelman G. M. Gandour J. T. Krishnan A. (2011). Cross-domain effects of music and language experience on the representation of pitch in the human auditory brainstem. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 425– 434 10.1162/jocn.2009.21362 19925180 · DOI
  9. Caclin A. McAdams S. Smith B. K. Winsberg S. (2005). Acoustic correlates of timbre space dimensions: a confirmatory study using synthetic tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 471– 482 10.1121/1.1929229 16119366 · DOI
  10. Cariani P. A. Delgutte B. (1996). Neural correlates of the pitch of complex tones. I. Pitch and pitch salience. J. Neurophysiol. 76, 1698– 1716 8890286
  11. Chandrasekaran B. Hornickel J. Skoe E. Nicol T. Kraus N. (2009). Context-dependent encoding in the human auditory brainstem relates to hearing speech in noise: implications for developmental dyslexia. Neuron 64, 311– 319 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.10.006 19914180 PMC2778610 · DOI
  12. Chandrasekaran B. Kraus N. (2010). The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 47, 236– 246 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00928.x 19824950 PMC3088516 · DOI
  13. Chapin H. Jantzen K. Kelso S. J. A. Steinberg F. Large E. (2010). Dynamic emotional and neural responses to music depend on performance expression and listener experience. PLoS ONE 5: e13812 10.1371/journal.pone.0013812 21179549 PMC3002933 · DOI
  14. Clynes M. (1995). Microstructural musical linguistics: composers’ pulses are liked most by the best musicians. Cognition 55, 269– 310 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00650-A 7634761 · DOI
  15. Corrigall K. Trainor L. (2010). “The predictive relationship between length of musical training and cognitive skills in children,” in Paper presented at the 11th Intl. Conf. on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC11), August 2010, Seattle, WA
  16. Cutler A. (1994). Segmentation problems, rhythmic solutions. Lingua 92, 81– 104 10.1016/0024-3841(94)90338-7 · DOI
  17. Drullman R. Festen J. M. Plomp R. (1994). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1053– 1064 10.1121/1.408825 8132899 · DOI
  18. Edelman G. M. Gally J. (2001). Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 13763– 13768 10.1073/pnas.231499798 11698650 PMC61115 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Eerola T. Himberg T. Toiviainen P. Louhivuori J. (2006). Perceived complexity of western and African folk melodies by western and African listeners. Psychol. Music 34, 337– 371 10.1177/0305735606064842 · DOI
  20. Ferreira F. Patson N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1, 71– 83 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x · DOI
  21. Fritz J. Elhilali M. Shamma S. (2005). Active listening: task-dependent plasticity of spectrotemporal receptive fields in primary auditory cortex. Hear. Res. 206, 159– 176 10.1016/j.heares.2005.01.015 16081006 · DOI
  22. Ghitza O. Greenberg S. (2009). On the possible role of brain rhythms in speech perception: Intelligibility of time compressed speech with periodic and aperiodic insertions of silence. Phonetica 66, 113– 126 10.1159/000208934 19390234 · DOI
  23. Gordon J. W. (1987). The perceptual attack time of musical tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 88– 105 10.1121/1.2025038 3624645 · DOI
  24. Goswami U. Thompson J. Richardson U. Stainthorp R. Hughes D. Rosen S. Scott S. K. (2002). Amplitude envelope onsets and developmental dyslexia: a new hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 10911– 10916 10.1073/pnas.122368599 12142463 PMC125072 · DOI
  25. Goswami U. (2010). A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 3– 10 10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.001 21093350 · DOI
  26. Hämäläinen J. A. Salminen H. K. Leppänen P. H. T. (in press). Basic auditory processing deficits in dyslexia: Review of the behavioural, event-related potential and magnetoencephalographic evidence. J. Learn. Disabil. 22323280
  27. Hickok G. Poeppel D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 393– 402 10.1038/nrn2113 17431404 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Holt L. L. Idemaru K. (2011). “Generalization of dimension-based statistical learning of speech,” in Proc. 17th Intl. Cong. Phonetic Sci. (ICPhS XVII), Hong Kong, China
  29. Huss M. Verney J. P. Fosker T. Mead N. Goswami U. (2011). Music, rhythm, rise time perception and developmental dyslexia: perception of musical meter predicts reading and phonology. Cortex 47, 674– 689 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.07.010 20843509 · DOI
  30. Hyde K. L. Lerch J. Norton A. Forgeard M. Winner E. Evans A. E. Schlaug G. (2009). Musical training shapes structural brain development. J. Neurosci. 29, 3019– 3025 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118-08.2009 19279238 PMC2996392 · DOI
  31. Jagadeesh B. (2006). “Attentional modulation of cortical plasticity,” in Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation: Neural Repair and Plasticity, Vol. 1 eds Selzer M. Clarke S. E. Cohen L. G. Duncan P. W. Gage F. H. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 194– 205
  32. Jentschke S. Koeslch S. Sallat S. Friederici A. (2008). Children with specific language impairment also show impairment of music-syntactic processing. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 1940– 1951 10.1162/jocn.2008.20135 18416683 · DOI
  33. Kaas J. Hackett T. (2000). Subdivisions of auditory cortex and processing streams in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11793– 11799 10.1073/pnas.97.22.11793 11050211 PMC34351 · DOI
  34. Kilgard M. Merzenich M. (1998). Cortical reorganization enabled by nucleus basalis activity. Science 279, 1714– 1718 10.1126/science.279.5357.1714 9497289 · DOI
  35. Kral A. Eggermont J. (2007). What's to lose and what's to learn: development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity. Brain Res. Rev. 56, 259– 269 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.07.021 17950463 · DOI
  36. Kraus N. Chandrasekaran B. (2010). Music training for the development of auditory skills. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 599– 605 10.1038/nrm2968 20648064 · DOI
  37. Krishnan A. Xu Y. Gandour J. Cariani P. (2005). Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 25, 161– 168 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.004 15935624 · DOI
  38. Lakshimnarayanan K. Tallal P. (2007). Generalization of non-linguistic auditory perceptual training to syllable discrimination. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 25, 263– 272 17943004
  39. Lappe C. Herholz S. C. Trainor L. J. Pantev C. (2008). Cortical plasticity induced by short-term unimodal and multimodal musical training. J. Neurosci. 8, 9632– 9639 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2254-08.2008 18815249 PMC6671216 · DOI
  40. Lee K. M. Skoe E. Kraus N. Ashley R. (2009). Selective subcortical enhancement of musical intervals in musicians. J. Neurosci. 29, 5832– 5840 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6185-08.2009 19420250 PMC6665223 · DOI
  41. Liu F. Patel A. D. Fourcin A. Stewart L. (2010). Intonation processing in congenital amusia: discrimination, identification, and imitation. Brain 133, 1682– 1693 10.1093/brain/awq089 20418275 · DOI
  42. Mattys S. L. White L. Melhorn J. F. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: a hierarchical framework. J. Exp. Psychol. General 134, 477– 500 10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.477 16316287 · DOI
  43. McMurray B. Aslin R. Tanenhaus M. Spivey M. Subik D. (2008). Gradient sensitivity to within-category variation in speech: implications for categorical perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 34, 1609– 1631 10.1037/a0011747 19045996 PMC3011988 · DOI
  44. Moreno S. Marques C. Santos A. Santos M. Castro S. L. Besson M. (2009). Musical training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: more evidence for brain plasticity. Cereb. Cortex 19, 712– 723 10.1093/cercor/bhn120 18832336 · DOI
  45. Musacchia G. Sams M. Skoe E. Kraus N. (2007). Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 15894– 15898 10.1073/pnas.0701498104 17898180 PMC2000431 · DOI
  46. Musacchia G. Strait D. L. Kraus N. (2008). Relationships between behavior, brainstem and cortical encoding of seen and heard speech in musicians and nonmusicians. Hear. Res. 241, 34– 42 10.1016/j.heares.2008.04.013 18562137 PMC2701624 · DOI
  47. Nagarajan S. S. Cheung S. W. Bedenbaugh P. Beitel R. E. Schreiner C. E. Merzenich M. M. (2002). Representation of spectral and temporal envelope of twitter vocalizations in common marmoset primary auditory cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 87, 1723– 1737 11929894
  48. Overy K. (2003). Dyslexia and music: from timing deficits to musical intervention. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 999, 497– 505 10.1196/annals.1284.060 14681173 · DOI
  49. Palmer C. (1997). Music performance. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 48, 115– 138 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.115 9046557 · DOI
  50. Panizzon M. W. Fennema-Notestine C. Eyler L. T. Jernigan T. L. Prom-Wormley E. Neale M. Jacobson K. Lyons M. J. Grant M. D. Franz C. E. Xian H. Tsuang M. Tsuang M. Fischl B. Seidman L. Dale A. Kremen W. S. (2009). Distinct genetic influences on cortical surface area and cortical thickness. Cereb. Cortex 19, 2728– 2735 10.1093/cercor/bhp026 19299253 PMC2758684 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Parbery-Clark A. Skoe E. Kraus N. (2009). Musical experience limits the degradative effects of background noise on the neural processing of sound. J. Neurosci. 29, 14100– 14107 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3256-09.2009 19906958 PMC6665054 · DOI
  52. Parbery-Clark A. Strait D. L. Anderson S. Hittner E. Kraus N. (2011). Musical training and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise. PLoS ONE 6: e18082 10.1371/journal.pone.0018082 21589653 PMC3092743 · DOI
  53. Patel A. D. (2008). Music, Language, and the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press
  54. Patel A. D. Iversen J. R. (2007). The linguistic benefits of musical abilities. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 369– 372 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.003 17698406 · DOI
  55. Patel A. D. Iversen J. R. Wassenaar M. Hagoort P. (2008). Musical syntactic processing in agrammatic Broca's aphasia. Aphasiology 22, 776– 789 10.1080/02687030701803804 · DOI
  56. Patel A. D. Xu Y. Wang B. (2010). “The role of F0 variation in the intelligibility of Mandarin sentences,” in Proc. Speech Prosody 2010, May 11–14, 2010, Chicago, IL, USA
  57. Peretz I. Coltheart M. (2003). Modularity of music processing. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 688– 691 10.1038/nn1083 12830160 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Peretz I. Cummings S. Dubé M-P. (2007). The genetics of congenital amusia (or tone-deafness): a family aggregation study. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 582– 588 10.1086/521337 17701903 PMC1950825 · DOI
  59. Poeppel D. (2003). The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as ‘asymmetric sampling in time’. Speech Commun. 41, 245– 255 10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00107-3 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Polley D. B. Steinberg E. E. Merzenich M. M. (2006). Perceptual learning directs auditory cortical map reorganization through top-down influences. J. Neurosci. 26, 4970– 4982 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3771-05.2006 16672673 PMC6674159 · DOI
  61. Recanzone G. H. Schreiner C. C. Merzenich M. M. (1993). Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. J. Neurosci. 13, 87– 103 8423485 PMC6576321
  62. Repp B. H. (1992). Diversity and commonality in music performance: an analysis of timing microstructure in Schumann's “Träumerei.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 2546– 2568 10.1121/1.404425 1479119 · DOI
  63. Russo N. Nicol T. Musacchia G. Kraus N. (2004). Brainstem response to speech syllables. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 2021– 2030 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.04.003 15294204 PMC2529166 · DOI
  64. Salimpoor V. Benovoy M. Larcher K. Dagher A. Zatorre R. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 257– 262 10.1038/nn.2726 21217764 · DOI
  65. Schnupp J. Nelken I. King A. (2011). Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  66. Schofield B. R. (2010). Projections from auditory cortex to midbrain cholinergic neurons that project to the inferior colliculus. Neuroscience 166, 231– 240 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.12.008 20005923 PMC2814949 · DOI
  67. Skoe E. Kraus N. (2010). Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear. 31, 302– 324 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181cdb272 20084007 PMC2868335 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Song J. Skoe E. Banai K. Kraus N. (2010). Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 2268– 2279 10.1162/jocn.2010.21556 PMC3253852 20681749 · DOI
  69. Song J. H. Skoe E. Wong P. C. Kraus N. (2008). Plasticity in the adult human auditory brainstem following short-term linguistic training. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 1892– 1902 10.1162/jocn.2008.20131 18370594 PMC2829864 · DOI
  70. Stevens K. N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  71. Strait D. L. Kraus N. Parbery-Clark A. Ashley R. (2010). Musical experience shapes top-down auditory mechanisms: evidence from masking and auditory attention performance. Hear. Res. 261, 22– 29 10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.021 20018234 · DOI
  72. Strait D. L. Skoe E. Kraus N. Ashley R. (2009). Musical experience and neural efficiency: effects of training on subcortical processing of vocal expressions of emotion. Eur. J. Neurosci. 29, 661– 668 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06617.x 19222564 · DOI
  73. Strong W. Clark M. C. (1967). Perturbations of synthetic orchestral wind-instrument tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 277– 285 10.1121/1.1910503 · DOI
  74. Suga N. (2008). Role of corticofugal feedback in hearing. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 194, 169– 183 10.1007/s00359-007-0274-2 18228080 · DOI
  75. Tallal P. Gaab N. (2006). Dynamic auditory processing, musical experience and language development. Trends Neurosci. 29, 382– 390 10.1016/j.tins.2006.06.003 16806512 · DOI
  76. Tervaniemi M. Kruck S. De Baene W. Schröger E. Alter K. Friederici A. D. (2009). Top-down modulation of auditory processing: effects of sound context, musical expertise and attentional focus. Eur. J. Neurosci. 30, 1636– 1642 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06955.x 19821835 · DOI
  77. Thiel C. M. (2007). Pharmacological modulation of learning-induced plasticity in human auditory cortex. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 25, 435– 443 17943017
  78. Thompson J. M. Goswami U. (2008). Rhythmic processing in children with developmental dyslexia: auditory and motor rhythms link to reading and spelling. J. Physiol. Paris 102, 120– 129 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.007 18448317 · DOI
  79. Toscano J. C. McMurray B. (2010). Cue integration with categories: weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cogn. Sci. 34, 434– 464 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01077.x 21339861 PMC3039883 · DOI
  80. Toscano J. C. McMurray B. Dennhardt J. Luck S. J. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categorization: electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1532– 1540 10.1177/0956797610384142 20935168 PMC3523688 · DOI
  81. Tzounopoulos T. Kraus N. (2009). Learning to encode timing: mechanisms of plasticity in the auditory brainstem. Neuron 62, 463– 469 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.05.002 19477149 PMC2792730 · DOI
  82. Vandermosten M. Boets B. Luts H. Poelmans H. Golestani N. Wouters J. Ghesquière P. (2010). Adults with dyslexia are impaired in categorizing speech and nonspeech sounds on the basis of temporal cues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 10389– 10394 10.1073/pnas.0912858107 20498069 PMC2890794 · DOI
  83. Weinberger N. (2007). Auditory associative memory and representational plasticity in the primary auditory cortex. Hear. Res. 229, 54– 68 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.004 17344002 PMC2693954 · DOI
  84. Winer J. (2006). Decoding the auditory corticofugal systems. Hear. Res. 212, 1– 8 10.1016/j.heares.2005.06.014 16555378 · DOI
  85. Wong P. C. Skoe E. Russo N. M. Dees T. Kraus N. (2007). Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 420– 422 17351633 PMC4508274
  86. Zatorre R. J. Belin P. Penhune V. B. (2002). Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 37– 46 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01816-7 11849614 · DOI
  87. Zatorre R. J. Gandour J. T. (2008). Neural specializations for speech and pitch: moving beyond the dichotomies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 1087– 1104 10.1098/rstb.2007.2161 17890188 PMC2606798 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, A. D.
Affiliations
Neurosciences Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Patel, Aniruddh D.
ORCID
Patel, Aniruddh D.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2011
Volume
2
Pages
142-142
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00142
PMC
PMC3128244
OpenAlex
W2044647181
Cited by
703
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 29
FWCI
15.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Neurosciences Research Foundation
  • Neurosciences Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
musical training, speech perception, neuroplasticity, amplitude envelope, emotions, attention, repetition, reading skills

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