| Literature DB >> 26407242 |
Elena Flaugnacco1, Luisa Lopez2, Chiara Terribili2, Marcella Montico3, Stefania Zoia4, Daniele Schön5.
Abstract
There is some evidence for a role of music training in boosting phonological awareness, word segmentation, working memory, as well as reading abilities in children with typical development. Poor performance in tasks requiring temporal processing, rhythm perception and sensorimotor synchronization seems to be a crucial factor underlying dyslexia in children. Interestingly, children with dyslexia show deficits in temporal processing, both in language and in music. Within this framework, we test the hypothesis that music training, by improving temporal processing and rhythm abilities, improves phonological awareness and reading skills in children with dyslexia. The study is a prospective, multicenter, open randomized controlled trial, consisting of test, rehabilitation and re-test (ID NCT02316873). After rehabilitation, the music group (N = 24) performed better than the control group (N = 22) in tasks assessing rhythmic abilities, phonological awareness and reading skills. This is the first randomized control trial testing the effect of music training in enhancing phonological and reading abilities in children with dyslexia. The findings show that music training can modify reading and phonological abilities even when these skills are severely impaired. Through the enhancement of temporal processing and rhythmic skills, music might become an important tool in both remediation and early intervention programs.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02316873Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26407242 PMCID: PMC4583182 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow chart illustrating participants’ recruitment and experimental design.
General description of the two groups.
| Painting (n = 22) | Music (n = 24) | p-value | test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 77% | 71% | 0,7 | Fisher |
|
| 10 (1) | 10 (1) | 0,8 | Mann-Whitney |
|
| 86% | 92% | 0,8 | Fisher |
|
| 5 (4–7) | 5 (4–6) | 0,24 | Mann-Whitney |
|
| 18% | 21% | 1 | Fisher |
|
| 0% | 4% | 1 | 1 Fisher |
|
| 3 (0,69) | 2,83 (0,70) | 0,64 | Mann-Whitney |
Summary of reading and phonological awareness results before and after training.
| Before training | After training | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Outcomes Variables | Measure | Painting Group n = 24 | Music Group n = 22 | Painting Group n = 24 | Music Group n = 22 | Larger effect of music training | Effect size |
|
|
| N of severely impaired children (<5) | 15 | 17 | 12 | 5 |
| OR = 3.7 |
|
| Mean of z score of seconds | 4.1 (3.0) | 3.6 (2.6) | 2.89 (2.6) | 2.42 (2.2) | 0.57 (***) | ||
|
|
| N of severely impaired children (<15) | 21 | 20 | 15 | 8 |
| OR = 1.9 |
|
| Mean of z score syill/s | -2.15 (0.84) | -1.83 (0.62) | -1.88 (0.81) | -1.68 (0.61) | 0.51 ( | ||
|
|
| N of severely impaired children (<5) | 18 | 15 | 8 | 7 | 0,76 | |
|
| Mean of z score of seconds | 6.2 (5.5) | 5.6 (4.4) | 4.18 (4.7) | 3.38 (2.9) | 0.67 (***) | ||
|
|
| Mean of correct Pseudo-words | 32.45 (4.95) | 31.33 (3.71) | 33.77 (4.3) | 34.87 (2.6) |
| 0.3 |
|
|
| Mean of correct words | 13.5 (9.48) | 17.1 (9.50) | 20.36 (8.78) | 23.52 (7.72) | 0.7 (***) | |
|
| Mean of seconds | 437 (186) | 429 (132) | 401 (123) | 397 (94) | 0.17 | ||
|
|
| Mean of correct words | 9.4 (9.45) | 11 (10.96) | 14.05 (9.38) | 19.83 (9.54) |
| 0.4 |
|
| Mean of seconds | 614 (153) | 630 (153) | 620 (207) | 557 (148) | 0.10 | ||
The column “Larger effect of music training” reports whether or not there is a larger improvement in the music training group compared to the painting group (p value<0.05). When this is not the case (ns, p>0.05), significant main effects of session are reported (* = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001), pointing to an equal improvement of both groups. The standard deviation from the mean is reported in parenthesis. The effect size is reported for significant effects (categorical data: Odd Ratio; interval data: z/√N).
Fig 2Effects of music and painting training on accuracy in the phonemic blending (a) and rhythm reproduction (b) tasks, before and after training.
Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Values are z-score normalized.
Summary of results before and after training in WISC III Subtests, Auditory attention test, Self Esteem Competence Scale and Musical tasks.
| Before training | After training | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Measure | Painting Group n = 24 | Music Group n = 22 | Painting Group n = 24 | Music Group n = 22 | Larger effect of music training | Effect size |
|
| Mean of Composite Score | 87 (12) | 81 (12) | 85 (18) | 84 (13) | 0.07 | 0.25 |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 8 (2.6) | 7 (2.1) | 7 (3) | 8 (3) |
| 0.35 |
|
| Mean of Span Raw Score | 4.1 (1.0) | 4.2 (0.6) | 4 (1.0) | 4.2 (0.8) | 0.4 | |
|
| Mean of Span Raw Score | 2.5 (0.7) | 2.3 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.8) | 2.9 (1) |
| 0.32 |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 8 (3) | 7 (2) | 8 (4) | 7 (3) | 0.9 | |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 11 (3) | 12 (3) | 12 (3) | 12 (3) |
| -0.32 |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 12 (2) | 11 (2) | 13 (3) | 14 (2) | 0.16 | |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 9 (3) | 8 (2) | 9 (3) | 8 (3) | 0.9 | |
|
| Mean of Scaled Scores | 10 (3) | 10 (2) | 11 (4) | 10 (3) | 0.4 | |
|
| Mean of Standard Scores | 93 (12) | 88 (10) | 96 (10) | 96 (11) | 0.28* | |
|
| Correct answers, Mean of raw score | 8.4 (1.7) | 7.7 (2.5) | 7.7 (1.5) | 8.8 (1.4) |
| 0.4 |
|
| Mean Threshold in ms | 44,21 | 46,57 | 45,64 | 31,39 |
| 0.45 |
|
| Mean Threshold in ms | 83,30 | 83,30 | 68,16 | 63,14 | 0.5* | |
|
| Mean accuracy | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| 0.45 |
|
| Mean accuracy | 10,6 | 10,5 | 11,4 | 11,3 | 0.8 | |
|
| Coefficient of variation | 0,11 | 0,10 | 0,08 | 0,08 | 0.9 *** | |
The column “Larger effect of music training” reports whether or not there is a larger and significant improvement in the music training group compared to the painting group (p value<0.05), except in the Block design test wherein the improvement is larger for the Painting group (+). When this is not the case (ns, p>0.05), significant main effects of session are reported (* = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001), pointing to an equal improvement of both groups. The standard deviation from the mean is reported in parenthesis.
Fig 3Scatter plot of the improvement in the rhythm reproduction task (accuracy After training—accuracy Before training) and the improvement in the Phonemic blending task (accuracy After training—accuracy Before training).
The ellipse contains the non-outlying data. The grey line represents the best linear fit to the remaining data (Spearman skipped correlation, [47]). The shadow represents the 95% bootstrap CI.