A Novel Multimodal Musical Exercise to Enhance

Auditory Perceptual Learning and Memory

http://goo.gl/ZR76w9

Wes Jackson , Michael Merzenich , Alit Stark-Inbar , Tom Van Vleet

1

1,2

1,3

1,4

Posit Science, 2University of California, San Francisco,3University of California, Berkeley, 4Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Medical Center, Martinez

INTRODUCTION

A second goal was to characterize age-dependent differences in multimodal integration and auditory perceptual learning using a large cohort of older (60 -100 years, N=1810)
and younger (20-60 years, N=1455) individuals.

METHODS

Overall learning

Hear & see representation of rhythm

with ticking (A) & blinking (V) metronome as the playhead.

1: Baseline
2: Best

Best

1: Baseline

40

60

Age

80

100

Age groups are in bins of 20 yrs.

**

Learning Rate

**

4.0

Best

**

baseline

**

3.0

2.5
Performance

best

5
6
7
8
# Config Repeats

Older individuals require additional training in

order to exploit AV cues similar to younger.
Performance by Modality
4.0

3.5

3.5

Best

Best

4.0

3.0

3.0

2.5

2.5

rpt= 3 4

rpt= 5 +

Visual Cue Reliance

Visual Cue Reliance

0.5

**

0.2

**

**

**

0.1
0.0

Younger than 60
Older than 60

2
Complexity

1. younger
2. older
N older = 562 , N younger = 361

1. younger
2. older
N older = 450 , N younger = 232

rpt= 3 4

rpt= 5 +

n.s. not signicant

* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01

CONCLUSIONS
Although older individuals generally underperform compared to younger individuals, they exhibit similar learning
rates and are similarly affected by rhythmic complexity and the
balance of crossmodal information.
Additionally, older individuals require more training to
derive a similar benet from crossmodal information as
younger individuals.
These results are consistent with recent studies that show that
although older individuals demonstrate degraded auditory
perceptual processing and greater susceptibility to visual
information interference, their cross-modal integration capacities are similar to those of younger individuals (Mishra &
`Gazzaley, 2013).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

n.s.

0.4
0.3

0.1
0.0

Modality

2. A

N older = 450 , N younger = 232

0.3
0.2

1. AV

N older = 562 , N younger = 361

0.4

Best: AV A

Modality

2. A

Best: AV A

0.5

1. AV

Legend

10

N older = 8907 blocks, r = 0.139, p<0.01

N younger = 5356 blocks, r = 0.142, p<0.01

N older = 9458 , N younger = 5624 blocks

**
N older = 9458 blocks, r = 0.272, p<0.01
N younger = 5624 blocks, r = 0.279, p<0.01

3.5

2.5

N=15082 blocks, r=0.284 p<0.01

Baseline vs Best Threshold

**

3.0

2: Best

N=15082 blocks, p<0.01

Threshold (# beats) adapts to player performance.

Low performance
High performance

Uninformative visual cues during response & no metronome.

Performance by Rhythmic Complexity

3.5

Performance by Modality

AUDITORY-ONLY (A) CUES

4.0

AV cues during response playback

but player must rely on their
memory to reproduce the precise
timing of the sequence.

**

Threshold

Response

Stimulus

Performance by Age

**

AUDIOVISUAL (AV) CUES

Complexity increases across training:

1: Low complexity = 8th-4th notes
2. Medium complexity = 16th-4th notes
3. High complexity = rests

Best

The aim of this pilot study was to test and validate a novel
web and mobile-based cognitive training exercise (Rhythm
Recall) designed to enhance multimodal integration and
auditory perceptual learning.

Task Learning & Age Effects

Threshold (# beats)

Multimodal musical training induces plastic changes in auditory and motor cross-modal regions (Baumann et al., 2007)
and enhances sensorimotor integration (Brochard et al.,
2003), visuospatial skills (Rauscher et al., 1997) and auditory
perceptual learning and memory (Seppanen et al., 2012,
Thaut et al., 2006).

RESULTS

Assess the inuence of Rhythm Recall training on auditory

perceptual acuity, learning and memory in a randomized controlled trial.
Investigate multimodal training with Rhythm Recall as a clinical intervention for individuals with neuromotor disorders
such as Parkinsons & Huntingtons Disease or auditory and
verbal learning decits such as users of cochlear implants.

REFERENCES
Baumann, S., Koeneke, S., Schmidt, C. F., Meyer, M., Lutz, K., & Jancke, L. (2007). A network for audiomotor coordination in skilled pianists and non-musicians. Brain Research, 1161(0), 6578.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.045
Brochard, R., Dufour, A., & Desprs, O. (2004). Effect of musical expertise on visuospatial abilities: Evidence from reaction times and mental imagery. Brain and Cognition, 54(2), 103109.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00264-1
Mishra J., Gazzaley A. (2013). Preserved Discrimination Performance and Neural Processing during Crossmodal Attention in Aging. PLoS ONE 8(11): e81894. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081894
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L. J., Wright, E. L., Dennis, W. R., & Newcomb, R. L. (1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children's spatial-temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19, 2-8.
Seppnen, M., Hmlinen, J., Pesonen, A.-K., & Tervaniemi, M. (2012). Music Training Enhances Rapid Neural Plasticity of N1 and P2 Source Activation for Unattended Sounds. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 43.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00043
Thaut, M. H., Peterson D. A. and McIntosh, G. C. (2005), Temporal Entrainment of Cognitive Functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060: 243254. doi: 10.1196/annals.1360.017