![]() Interestingly, music training is ineffective regardless of the type of outcome measure (e.g., verbal, non-verbal, speed-related, etc.), participants’ age, and duration of training. Small statistically significant overall effects are obtained only in those studies implementing no random allocation of participants and employing non-active controls (g ≈ 0.200, p <. Results of Bayesian analyses employing distributional assumptions (informative priors) derived from previous research in cognitive training corroborate these conclusions. Once the quality of study design is controlled for, the overall effect of music training programs is null (g ≈ 0) and highly consistent across studies (τ2 ≈ 0). The present meta-analytic review (N = 6,984, k = 254, m = 54) shows that this belief is incorrect. ![]() This claim relies on the assumption that engaging in intellectually demanding activities fosters particular domain-general cognitive skills, or even general intelligence. Music training has repeatedly been claimed to positively impact children’s cognitive skills and academic achievement (literacy and mathematics). ![]() We believe that this framework can also be applied more broadly to understanding how predispositions, brain development and experience interact. The goal of this paper is to present current evidence for sensitive period effects for musical training in the context of what is known about brain maturation and to present a framework that integrates genetic, environmental and maturational influences on the development of musical skill. Work from our lab and others shows that musical training before the ages of 7-9 enhances performance on musical tasks and modifies brain structure and function, sometimes in unexpected ways. Thus, the timing of exposure to specific experience, such as music training, has been shown to produce long-term impacts on adult behaviour and the brain. Recently, however, the important contribution of maturation to gene-environment interactions has become better understood. In summary, prodigies are expected to present brain predispositions facilitating their success in learning an instrument, which could be amplified by their early and intense practice happening at a moment when brain plasticity is heightened.Īdult ability in complex cognitive domains, including music, is commonly thought of as the product of gene-environment interactions, where genetic predispositions influence and are modulated by experience, resulting in the final phenotypic expression. The results are compatible with multifactorial models of expertise, with prodigies lying at the high end of the continuum. Thus practice, by itself, does not make a prodigy. The other aspects that differentiated musical prodigies from their peers were the intensity of their practice before adolescence, and the source of their motivation when they began to play. None of the psychological traits distinguished musical prodigies from control musicians or non-musicians except their propensity to report flow during practice. ![]() All completed a Wechsler IQ test, the Big Five Inventory, the Autism Spectrum Quotient, the Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire, the Dispositional Flow Scale, and a detailed history of their lifetime music practice. Nineteen former or current musical prodigies (aged 12–34) were compared to 35 musicians (aged 14–37) with either an early (mean age 6) or late (mean age 10) start but similar amount of musical training, and 16 non-musicians (aged 14–34). Here we assess to what extent practice, intelligence, and personality make musical prodigies a distinct category of musician. Despite longstanding interest and fascination in musical prodigies, little is known about their psychological profile. Musical prodigies reach exceptionally high levels of achievement before adolescence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |