| Literature DB >> 30481227 |
Rafael Román-Caballero1, Marisa Arnedo2, Mónica Triviño1,3, Juan Lupiáñez1,4.
Abstract
Aging is accompanied by cognitive decline, although recent research indicates that the rate of decline depends on multiple lifestyle factors. One of such factors is musical practice, an activity that involves several sensory and motor systems and a wide range of high-level cognitive processes. This paper describes the first systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, of the impact of musical practice on healthy neurocognitive aging. The inclusion criteria for the review required that studies were empirical works in English or Spanish that they explored the effects of musical practice on older people; they included an assessment of cognitive functions and/or an assessment of brain status; and they included a sample of participants aged 59 years or older with no cognitive impairment or brain damage. This review led to the selection of 13 studies: 9 correlational studies involving older musicians and non-musicians and 4 experimental studies involving short-term musical training programs. The results of the meta-analysis showed cognitive and cerebral benefits of musical practice, both in domain-specific functions (auditory perception) and in other rather domain-general functions. Moreover, these benefits seem to protect cognitive domains that usually decline with aging and boost other domains that do not decline with aging. The origin of these benefits may reside, simultaneously, in the specific training of many of these cognitive functions during musical practice (specific training mechanism), in the improvement of compensatory cognitive processes (specific compensatory mechanism), and in the preservation of general functions with a global influence on others, such as perceptual capacity, processing speed, inhibition and attention (general compensatory mechanism). Therefore, musical practice seems to be a promising tool to reduce the impact of cognitive problems associated to aging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30481227 PMCID: PMC6258526 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1PRISMA flowchart of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fig 2Risk of bias summary for correlational studies.
Fig 3Risk of bias summary for experimental studies.
Main characteristics of the correlational studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Total sample | Groups | Results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Year | Size | Age | Sex | Characteristics | Main | Others | |
| Baird et al. [ | 2017 | N = 22 | ≥ 65 years | – | Musicians (n = 15) | ns | – | |
| Bidelman & Alain [ | 2015 | N = 20 | > 60 years | 50% men | Musicians (n = 10) | – | Faster classification of speech sounds | |
| Brain coding of speech more efficient and robust; also possible improvement in attention | ||||||||
| Fauvel et al. [ | 2014 | Study 1 | N = 68 | ≤ 55 years vs. ≥ 60 years | 44% men | Older musicians (n = 15) | ↑ DSF | With aging: |
| Study 2 | N = 47 | ≥ 60 years | 47% men | Older early musicians (n = 15) | – | - Older musicians with early onset showed better letter fluency | ||
| Grassi et al. [ | 2017 | N = 40 | ≥ 65 years | 70% men | Musicians (n = 20) | ↑ VPTA | Better central auditory processing | |
| Frequency discrimination, gap detection, VPTA, LST and sMRT are good to excellent classifiers for musicians | ||||||||
| Hanna-Pladdy & Gajewski [ | 2012 | N = 70 | ≥ 59 years | – | Musicians (n = 33) | ↑ LNS | Trends in ROCF delayed recall and D-KEFS letter fluency in currently active musicians (they also have more years of practice) | |
| In partition analyses, predictors: | ||||||||
| JLO | ||||||||
| LNS | ||||||||
| Hanna-Pladdy & MacKay [ | 2011 | N = 70 | ≥ 60 years | 40–50% men | High activity musicians (n = 22) | ↑ VRII | Cognitive performance (VRII, TMT-B and BNT) correctly classifies 57.1% of participants (77.3% of high activity musicians) into the 3 groups. | |
| Age of onset is the best predictor of VRI, years of practice of VRII (followed by age of onset), age of TMT-A (followed by years of practice) and TMT-B (followed by current practice), and type of training of BNT | ||||||||
| Mansens et al. [ | 2017 | N = 1101 | ≥ 64 years | 52% men | Musicians (n = 277) | ↑ Alphabet coding Task-15 | Playing an instrument: | |
| Moussard et al. [ | 2016 | N = 34 | ≥ 59 years | 47% men | Musicians (n = 17) | ↑ Go/No-go (Errors) | Overall, more inhibitory ability and more anterior activation: | |
| Strong & Midden [ | 2018 | N = 58 | ≥ 65 years | 53% men | Active musicians (n = 32) | ↑ Stroop-1 D-KEFS | – | |
DSF: Digit Span Forward; VPTA: Visual Pattern Test Active; LST: Listening Span Test; sEFT: short Embedded Figures Test; sMRT: short Mental Rotation Test; LNS: Letter-Number Sequencing; D-KEFS: Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System; CVLT-II SDFR: California Verbal Learning Test-II Short Delay Free Recall; JLO: Judgment of Line Orientation; ROCF: Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure; GP: Grooved Pegboard; VRI &VRII: Visual Reproduction I & II; TMT: Trail Making Test; BNT: Boston Naming Test; SS: Spatial Span; DSB: Digit Span Backward; AVLT: Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
Variables related to the musical practice of participants in the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Study | Professional musicians | Groups | Age of onset | Years of training | Years of practice | Current practice (%) | Current practice (h/week) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baird et al., 2017 | Yes | – | – | – | 51 (22) | 100% | – |
| Bidelman & Alain, 2015 | No | – | 10.8 (2.5) | 11.4 (5.8) | – | 100% | – |
| Fauvel et al., 2014; Study 1 | No | Older musicians | 11.2 (4.5) | – | Overall: | 100% | 9.2 (6.6) |
| Middle-aged musicians | 8.4 (3.7) | – | 38.12 (17.7) | 100% | 15.3 (12.6) | ||
| Fauvel et al., 2014; Study 2 | No | Older musicians with early onset | 11.2 (4.5) | – | – | 100% | 9.2 (6.6) |
| Older musicians with late onset | 42.7 (11) | – | 25.8 (12.3) | 100% | 8.1 (7.2) | ||
| Grassi et al., 2017 | Yes | – | – | – | 60.3 (9.96) | 100% | – |
| Hanna-Pladdy & Gajewski, 2012 | No | – | 9.3 | 4 | 37 | 51.5% | – |
| Hanna-Pladdy & MacKay, 2011 | No | High activity musicians | 9.7 (7.2) | 3.5 (0.96) | 35.5 (24.7) | 45.5% | – |
| Low activity musicians | 10.4 (5.9) | 3.3 (0.95) | 3.8 (2.7) | 11.1% | – | ||
| Mansens et al., 2017 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Moussard et al., 2016 | Professionals and amateurs | – | 8.8 (3.8) | 27.8 (19.5) | 57.2 (8.4) | 100% | 11 (6.3) |
| Strong & Midden, 2018 | – | Active musicians | 8.4 (3.4) | 9.5 (6.4) | – | 100% | 7.9 (6.8) |
| Former musicians | 8.6 (2.2) | 7.9 (5.3) | – | – | – |
Fig 4Forest plots showing cognitive improvements in processing speed, attention, inhibition and verbal memory in older adults associated with long-term musical practice.
Fig 6Forest plots showing cognitive improvements in flexibility, visuospatial ability, semantic verbal fluency and visuoconstruction in older adults associated with long-term musical practice.
Main characteristics of the experimental studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Total sample | Groups | Results | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Year | Size | Age | Sex | Characteristics | Random assignment | Training program | Control group | Times of measurement | Main | Others |
| Bugos et al. [ | 2007 | N = 31 | 60–85 years | 24% men | Experimental (n = 16): piano training | Yes | 6-month piano training. ½ h of individual session and 3 h of autonomous practice per week | No training, only assessment | Pre-test | DSy | – |
| Bugos [ | 2010 | N = 46 | 60–85 years | 22% men | Experimental (n = 24): piano training | – | 16-week piano training. 45 min. of group session and 15 min. of social activities per week. ½ h of daily practice. | 16-week musical listening. 45 min. of group session and 15 min. of social activities per week. ½ h of daily listening. | Pre-test | Both groups, more in musical training: | – |
| Seinfeld et al. [ | 2013 | N = 29 | 60–85 years | 24% men | Experimental (n = 13): piano training | No | 4-month piano training. 1 and ½ h of group session and 45 min. of autonomous practice 5 days per week (~ 4 h). | 4 months of non-musical leisure activities. Everyone chose at least one physical exercise course. | Pre-test | ↑ FTT (D and ND) in both groups | ↑ BDI in both |
| In musical training: | |||||||||||
| Thorne [ | 2015 | N = 20 | 65–85 years | 35% men | Experimental (n = 10): piano training | Yes | 6-month piano training. ½ h of group session per week and ½ h of daily practice. | 6-month musical listening. ½ h of group session per week and ½ h of daily listening. | Pre-test | ↑ Stroop (Errors) | ↑ MOS Energy and Emotional Well-being |
DSy: Digit Symbol; TMT: Trail Making Test; DSF: Digit Span Forward; D-KEFS: Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System; VF: Verbal Fluency; PASAT: Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; FTT: Finger Tapping Test; VBM: Verbal Memory; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; POMS: Profile of Mood State; WHOQOL-BREF: The World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire; MMN: Mismatch Negativity.
Fig 7Forest plots showing the effects of short-term musical training on reasoning, visuoconstruction and flexibility in older adults.