Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
+
Behavioral and DTI
Studies on Normal
and Impaired
Learning of Musical
Structure
Psyche Loui
Wesleyan University
CogSci 2...
The world knows and loves music
Tone-deafness: a disorder of pitch
perception and action
 Congenital amusia
 Inability to sing in tune
 Incidence: 4 – ...
What is the source of musical
knowledge?
Frequency
Probability
Pitch
Harmony
Melody
Perception
Existing musical systems confound learning
with memory
Test learning with new frequencies &
probabilities
New musical syst...
Bohlen-Pierce
A new tuning system – the BP scale
F = 220 * 2 n/12
F = 220 * 3 n/13
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
The BP scale can form chords
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
increments (n)
frequency(Hz)
F = 220 ...
Composing in the Bohlen-Pierce
scale
10 7 10 10
6 4 7 6
0 0 3 0
F = 220 * 3 n/13
Krumhansl, 1987;
Loui, Wessel, & Hudson K...
Composing melody from harmony –
applying a finite-state grammar
10 7 10 10
6 4 7 6
0 0 3 0
Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 201...
Melody: 6  4  7  7  7  6  10  10
10 7 10 10
6 4 7 6
0 0 3 0
Composing melody from harmony –
applying a finite-state...
Can we learn the B-P scale?
General design of behavioral studies:
1. PRE-TEST
 assess baseline
2. EXPOSURE to melodies in...
Learning a musical system:
Probability sensitivity
 Can we remember old melodies?
2-AFC test of recognition
 Can we lea...
Double dissociation between learning
and memory
No. of melodies
12740100No. of repetitions
5 10 15 400
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%...
Disrupting harmony – the forced
octave scale
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Increments (n)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1...
Disrupting melody – eliminating
select transitional probabilities
10 10 7 10
6 7 4 6
0 3 0 0
Loui, 2012, TopiCS
Generaliza...
Learning a new musical system:
Frequency sensitivity
 Can we learn to expect frequent tones?
 Probe tone ratings test
 ...
Pre-exposure probe tone ratings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Probe tone
Rating
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
R...
Post-exposure probe tone ratings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Probe tone
Rating
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
...
Correlating ratings with exposure
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Pre
Correlation(r)
Post
Exposure
Loui, Wessel & ...
Participants:
 15 tone-deaf, 20 control
 Matched for age, sex, number of years of musical training
Pre-test  30-min. ex...
Ratings: Controls
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ExposureFrequency
Ratings
Probe T...
Ratings: Tone-deaf
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ExposureFrequency
Rating
Probe T...
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Control Tonedeaf
r-value(ratingsvs.exposure)
Pre-Exposure
Post-Exposure
*
Disrupted...
MBEA (scale score) correlates with
probe tone learning
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
10 15 20 25 30
Post-ExposureProbe
ToneCorr...
What are the neural substrates
of music learning?
STG IFG
Superior Temporal Gyrus (STG)
Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG)
Mande...
Diffusion tensor imaging
Tone-deafness – regions of interest
STG IFG MTG
Loui, Alsop, & Schlaug, 2009, Journal of Neuroscience
Superior AF Inferior...
Control Tone-deaf
Normal vs. tone-deaf AFs
Loui, Alsop, & Schlaug, 2009, Journal of Neuroscience
Tract volume reflects individual
differences in learning
Volume of right ventral arcuate
fasciculus is correlated with
gen...
Crucial junction of arcuate fasciculus
predicts learning behavior
Search for Fractional Anisotropy correlates of
generaliz...
Behavioral implications of individual
differences in structural connectivity in
statistical learning
Normal Tone-deaf
Trac...
Summary
Frequency ProbabilityPitch
Experiments now available for
download
http://figshare.com/articles/Bohlen_Pierc
e_scale_artificial_grammar_learning_expe
...
Acknowledgements
Gottfried Schlaug
BIDMC, HMS
Music and Neuroimaging Lab
(http://musicianbrain.com)
Katy Abel
Rob Ellis
An...
Take-home
 Much of what we know and love about music is acquired
via statistical sensitivity to the frequency and probabi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Behavioral and DTI Studies on Normal and Impaired Learning of Musical Structure

1,732 views

Published on

Behavioral and DTI Studies on Normal and Impaired Learning of Musical Structure
A talk for CogSci 2013 in Berlin, August 1, 2013
Youtube video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1PnbDIhOXA

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Behavioral and DTI Studies on Normal and Impaired Learning of Musical Structure

  1. 1. + Behavioral and DTI Studies on Normal and Impaired Learning of Musical Structure Psyche Loui Wesleyan University CogSci 2013 August 1, 2013
  2. 2. The world knows and loves music
  3. 3. Tone-deafness: a disorder of pitch perception and action  Congenital amusia  Inability to sing in tune  Incidence: 4 – 17%  Montreal Battery of Evaluation for Amusia  Inability to discriminate pitch >1 semitone threshold (musicianbrain.com/pitchtes t)
  4. 4. What is the source of musical knowledge? Frequency Probability Pitch Harmony Melody Perception
  5. 5. Existing musical systems confound learning with memory Test learning with new frequencies & probabilities New musical system Tone-deafness We need a system to assess implicit music learning
  6. 6. Bohlen-Pierce A new tuning system – the BP scale F = 220 * 2 n/12 F = 220 * 3 n/13 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 increments (n) frequency(Hz) Western Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  7. 7. The BP scale can form chords 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 increments (n) frequency(Hz) F = 220 * 3 n/13 Bohlen-Pierce 3 : 5 : 7 Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  8. 8. Composing in the Bohlen-Pierce scale 10 7 10 10 6 4 7 6 0 0 3 0 F = 220 * 3 n/13 Krumhansl, 1987; Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  9. 9. Composing melody from harmony – applying a finite-state grammar 10 7 10 10 6 4 7 6 0 0 3 0 Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  10. 10. Melody: 6  4  7  7  7  6  10  10 10 7 10 10 6 4 7 6 0 0 3 0 Composing melody from harmony – applying a finite-state grammar Loui, Wessel, & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception. 10
  11. 11. Can we learn the B-P scale? General design of behavioral studies: 1. PRE-TEST  assess baseline 2. EXPOSURE to melodies in one grammar  ~30 minutes 3. POST-TESTS  assess learning
  12. 12. Learning a musical system: Probability sensitivity  Can we remember old melodies? 2-AFC test of recognition  Can we learn new melodies? 2-AFC test of generalization
  13. 13. Double dissociation between learning and memory No. of melodies 12740100No. of repetitions 5 10 15 400 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PercentCorrect 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Differenceinrating (familiar-unfamiliar) recognition generalization Loui & Wessel, 2008 Loui, Wessel & Hudson Kam, 2010
  14. 14. Disrupting harmony – the forced octave scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Increments (n) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 200 300 400 500 600 700 Frequency(Hz) 200 300 400 500 600 700 Western scale: F = 220 * 2 n/12 B-P scale: F = 220 * 3 n/13 Forced-octave scale: F = 220 * 2 n/13 3 : 5 : 7 3:4.13:5.11 Loui, 2012, TopiCS Generalization
  15. 15. Disrupting melody – eliminating select transitional probabilities 10 10 7 10 6 7 4 6 0 3 0 0 Loui, 2012, TopiCS Generalization Mechanisms enabling generalization in musical AGL depend on transitional probabilities.
  16. 16. Learning a new musical system: Frequency sensitivity  Can we learn to expect frequent tones?  Probe tone ratings test  Probe tone profiles reflect frequencies of compositions Krumhansl, 1990
  17. 17. Pre-exposure probe tone ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Probe tone Rating 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Rating Exposure Frequencyofexposure F = 220* 3n/13 Loui, Wessel & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  18. 18. Post-exposure probe tone ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Probe tone Rating 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Rating Exposure Frequencyofexposure Loui, Wessel & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception
  19. 19. Correlating ratings with exposure 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Pre Correlation(r) Post Exposure Loui, Wessel & Hudson Kam, 2010, Music Perception ** ** p < 0.01
  20. 20. Participants:  15 tone-deaf, 20 control  Matched for age, sex, number of years of musical training Pre-test  30-min. exposure  Post-test  Pre- vs. Post-Exposure  Tone-deaf vs. Controls Probe tone test: Melody  Tone  Probe tone profiles reflect frequencies in musical compositions (Krumhansl 1990) Statistical learning in tone-deaf individuals (In progress) Jan Iyer
  21. 21. Ratings: Controls 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ExposureFrequency Ratings Probe Tone Pre- Exposure Ratings * Error bars represent between-subject standard errors for all graphs Post- Exposure…
  22. 22. Ratings: Tone-deaf 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ExposureFrequency Rating Probe Tone Pre-Exposure Ratings Exposure Post-Exposure Ratings
  23. 23. -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Control Tonedeaf r-value(ratingsvs.exposure) Pre-Exposure Post-Exposure * Disrupted frequency learning in the tone-deaf * * * * p < 0.05 ** p = 0.001
  24. 24. MBEA (scale score) correlates with probe tone learning -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 15 20 25 30 Post-ExposureProbe ToneCorrelation(r) MBEA 2 (Contour) Score r=0.18 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 15 20 25 30 Post-ExposureProbe ToneCorrelation(r) MBEA 3 (Interval) Score r=0.15 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 15 20 25 30 Post-Exposure ProbeTone Correlation(r) r=0.36 (p<0.05) Average of first three MBEA Scores -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 20 30 40 Post-Exposure ProbeTone correlation(r) r=0.45 (p<0.01) MBEA 1 (Scale) Score Loui & Schlaug, 2012, ANYAS
  25. 25. What are the neural substrates of music learning? STG IFG Superior Temporal Gyrus (STG) Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG) Mandell et al, 2007; Hyde et al, 2007
  26. 26. Diffusion tensor imaging
  27. 27. Tone-deafness – regions of interest STG IFG MTG Loui, Alsop, & Schlaug, 2009, Journal of Neuroscience Superior AF Inferior AF
  28. 28. Control Tone-deaf Normal vs. tone-deaf AFs Loui, Alsop, & Schlaug, 2009, Journal of Neuroscience
  29. 29. Tract volume reflects individual differences in learning Volume of right ventral arcuate fasciculus is correlated with generalization score, but not with recognition score. r = 0.53, p = 0.03 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.5 1 1.5 RIFG–RMTG Tractvolume(103mm3) Generalization (proportion correct) Loui, Li, & Schlaug (2011) NeuroImage r = 0.054, n.s. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.5 1 Recognition (proportion correct)
  30. 30. Crucial junction of arcuate fasciculus predicts learning behavior Search for Fractional Anisotropy correlates of generalization performance FA (white matter integrity) of temporal-parietal junction predicts individual differences in pitch-related learning. p < 0.05 FWE Loui, Li, & Schlaug (2011) NeuroImage
  31. 31. Behavioral implications of individual differences in structural connectivity in statistical learning Normal Tone-deaf Tracts from right STG Loui, Alsop, & Schlaug, 2009, Journal of Neuroscience
  32. 32. Summary Frequency ProbabilityPitch
  33. 33. Experiments now available for download http://figshare.com/articles/Bohlen_Pierc e_scale_artificial_grammar_learning_expe riment/75772 Also at http://psycheloui.com/publications/down loads Max/MSP format Several versions with melodies included
  34. 34. Acknowledgements Gottfried Schlaug BIDMC, HMS Music and Neuroimaging Lab (http://musicianbrain.com) Katy Abel Rob Ellis Anja Hohmann Jan Iyer Charles Li Berit Lindau Christoph Mathys Sang-Hee Min Matthew Sachs Catherine Wan Jasmine Wang Anna Zamm Xin Zheng David Alsop BIDMC, HMS Carol Krumhansl Cornell University University of California at Berkeley David Wessel Center for New Music & Audio Technologies Erv Hafter Auditory Perception Lab Carla Hudson Kam Language & Learning Lab Bob Knight Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
  35. 35. Take-home  Much of what we know and love about music is acquired via statistical sensitivity to the frequency and probability of occurrence of events in the auditory environment.  This statistical learning mechanism relies on intact white matter connectivity between temporal and frontal lobe regions, and may subserve multiple auditory-motor functions including language as well as music.

×