title: Action-perception coupling in violinists.
abstract: The current study investigates auditory-motor coupling in musically trained participants using a Stroop-type task that required the execution of simple finger sequences according to aurally presented number sequences (e.g., "2," "4," "5," "3," "1"). Digital remastering was used to manipulate the pitch contour of the number sequences such that they were either congruent or incongruent with respect to the resulting action sequence. Conservatoire-level violinists showed a strong effect of congruency manipulation (increased response time for incongruent vs. congruent trials), in comparison to a control group of non-musicians. In Experiment 2, this paradigm was used to determine whether pedagogical background would influence this effect in a group of young violinists. Suzuki trained violinists differed significantly from those with no musical background, while traditionally trained violinists did not. The findings extend previous research in this area by demonstrating that obligatory audio-motor coupling is directly related to a musicians' expertise on their instrument of study and is influenced by pedagogy.
authors.affiliation: Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan ; Rhythm-Based Brain Information Processing Unit, RIKEN BSI-TOYOTA Collaboration Center Saitama, Japan.
authors.forename: Takafumi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kajihara
authors.forename: Rinus G
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Verdonschot
authors.forename: Joseph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Sparks
authors.forename: Lauren
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Stewart
keywords: audio-motor; learning; musicians; stroop; violinist
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(1):37-50
references.pmid: 22712516
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jun;3(6):473-8
references.pmid: 12042882
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2004 Aug 26;15(12):1917-21
references.pmid: 15305137
references.citation: Cognition. 2006 Mar;99(2):113-29
references.pmid: 15925355
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Nov;20(3):1817-29
references.pmid: 14642491
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Nov;58(8):1376-89
references.pmid: 16365945
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Oct;33(5):1189-207
references.pmid: 17924817
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1200-8
references.pmid: 21871571
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Aug;24(3):955-8
references.pmid: 16930423
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2013 Jul 1;74:37-44
references.pmid: 23454048
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Apr;1252:246-52
references.pmid: 22524366
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Apr 15;30(3):917-26
references.pmid: 16380270
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Apr;60(4):527-33
references.pmid: 17455063
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 May;23(2-3):436-43
references.pmid: 15820650
references.citation: Brain Res. 2007 Aug 3;1161:65-78
references.pmid: 17603027
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Aug 15;13(6):786-92
references.pmid: 11564322
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2007 Jan 10;27(2):308-14
references.pmid: 17215391