Enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sound is independent of musical experience.

Musicians tend to have better auditory and motor performance than non-musicians because of their extensive musical experience. In a previous study, we established that loudness discrimination acuity is enhanced when sound is produced by a precise force generation task. In this study, we compared the enhancement effect between experienced pianists and non-musicians. Without the force generation task, loudness discrimination acuity was better in pianists than non-musicians in the condition. However, the force generation task enhanced loudness discrimination acuity similarly in both pianists and non-musicians. The reaction time was also reduced with the force control task, but only in the non-musician group. The results suggest that the enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity with the precise force generation task is independent of musical experience and is, therefore, a fundamental function in auditory-motor interaction.

Introduction

Musicians have extensive auditory and motor experiences through their long-term training, and as a result, tend to have better auditory performance and corresponding motor performance than non-musicians. Psychoacoustic studies have shown that frequency discrimination thresholds are lower in musicians than in non-musicians, and the performance is dependent on the years of musical experience [1]. Pitch discrimination abilities are also better for musicians [2]. In addition to auditory ability, musicians have superior motor performance [3], superior perceptual acuity [4], and better somatosensory-motor interactions [5, 6]. Although these performances have been examined separately in auditory and motor functions, auditory and motor experiences via musical training may also affect the performance of auditory-motor interaction.

Previous studies have shown that auditory-motor interaction can alter auditory perception due to motor execution. The accuracy of auditory discrimination improved in the perception of self-generated sounds [7] while this perception was attenuated [8]. We also found that explicit control of the produced force on a finger pressing for sound production (like a piano keystroke) improved loudness discrimination [9]. Auditory-motor interaction also biases the perception of sounds based on the context of movement or related somatosensory inputs. The pianist’s perception of pitch is biased by the position of their keystroke on the piano [10]. The perception of speech sounds is biased depending on the somatosensory inputs associated with speech movement [11, 12]. These studies suggest that auditory-motor interactions can assist in the perception of self-generated sounds.

Although these findings on the perception of self-generated sound have been mainly investigated in online response or real-time perceptual processing, the auditory-motor interaction for the aid of auditory perception can be developed or improved by a specific experience, such as practicing the musical instrument. Considering that speech motor training changes the perception of speech sound [13, 14], musical experience and training could also improve auditory-motor interaction or representations for auditory perception, and musicians might show a different facilitatory effect compared to non-musicians.

The current study aimed to examine the effects of piano expertise on the change in loudness perception of sound produced by a precise force generation task. We focused on our previous finding that loudness discrimination acuity was facilitated when sound was self-generated with precise adjustment of force. We hypothesized that precision of motor execution, regardless of any amplitude of force, can be a key to improve the discrimination acuity. The precision of motor execution can be varied depending on the musical experience in a specific motor task such as the piano keystroke. We examined whether this facilitatory effect would depend on piano expertise and/or precise motor function with different force exertions by comparing pianists and non-musicians. If the piano expertise influences the perception of self-generated sounds through force-control task, a different amount of motor facilitation is expected. We also tested the two amplitudes of the target force. Although we found no change in the facilitatory effect depending on the amplitude of the produced force in non-musicians [9], pianists might show a change in facilitatory effect depending on the amplitude of the produced force due to their greater experience of sensorimotor performance on the piano playing.

Materials and methods

Participants

Thirty-four adults participated in the experiment (20–28 years). The participants were divided into two groups: the pianist group (n = 17) and the non-musician group (n = 17). The pianist group was assigned to those who majored in piano playing at a music college, and the participants of the pianist group had 13–24 years of piano experience. The non-musician group participants had not received such a professional musical education specifically concerning piano playing more than five years. Ten of them had never received a professional musical training. The participants were naïve to the purpose of the experiment. The experimental protocols were in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants signed an informed consent form approved by the Waseda University Ethics Board (#2015–033).

Settings

The main settings and procedures were the same as those in our previous study [9]. The participants were seated in front of a monitor (EV2450, EIZO) with headphones (HD280, Sennheiser). The right hand was used for the force generation task, and the left hand was used to respond to the auditory task by a keypress. In the force generation task, the force signals from the sensor (USL06-H5-50N-D-FZ, Tec Gihan) were transferred to a laptop computer at a sampling frequency of 200 Hz via an analog-to-digital converter (NI 9215, National Instruments). Data acquisition and stimulus presentation were carried out using MATLAB (MathWorks, Inc.) with the Data Acquisition Toolbox (MathWorks, Inc.) and Psychophysics Toolbox extensions [15-17].

Procedure

In the loudness discrimination test, two 1000-Hz pure tones (Fig 1A) were binaurally presented for 250 ms, separated by an interval of 1000 ms, through the headphones. The participants were asked to indicate whether the second sound (comparison stimulus) was louder or softer than the first sound (standard stimulus) by pressing the keys on the keyboard with their left hand. The amplitude of the standard stimulus was fixed at 65 dB, and the amplitude of the comparison stimulus was varied in each trial (from 62 dB to 68 dB in 1 dB increments). These amplitudes were determined as comfortable listening level based on participants reports in our preliminary experiment. Reaction times between the end of the comparison stimulus and participants’ responses were recorded.

Fig 1

(A) Temporal patterns of auditory stimulation (top) and trajectory of finger force generation with two different target amplitudes (bottom). (B) Examples of visual presentation. The cross mark represents the cursor of the force amplitude. The two horizontal lines represent the target amplitude (bottom line) and upper limit (top line). The position of cursor represents the amplitude when a 1N force was generated. The gray cursor represents the start position of the cursor.

We tested two conditions: with the force generation task (motor-condition) and without the task (non-motor condition). In the motor condition, the force generation task was involved in presenting the standard stimulus, but not for the comparison stimulus. The participants were asked to produce a specific force amplitude by pressing the force sensor with their right index finger. They were instructed to complete the entire movement to reach the target amplitude and then release the force in a short period (approximately 500 ms). The amplitude of the produced force was presented on a monitor in real time as a vertical movement of a cross cursor mark (Fig 1B). The target and upper limits were also presented on the same monitor using a horizontal bar (Fig 1B). In order to make the same visual presentation, the upper limit was set 125% of target level. The sound stimulus was produced when the peak amplitude of the force was within the range of the target and the upper limit of the force. Participants practiced before the main experiment. When the force exceeded the upper limit, the trial was excluded and repeated in the subsequent trial. Based on our previous study, we tested two levels of the target force (1N and 4N) with an expectation of clear contrast between force conditions.

In the non-motor condition, participants placed their right hand gently on a desk without any force generation or movement. We replayed the force data recorded in the motor condition for visual presentation; the cursor moved, and the standard stimulus was played when the cursor reached the target level on a monitor, as in the motor condition. For this reason, the non-motor condition was performed after performing at least one session using the motor condition. We confirmed in a previous study that the order of the two tests did not interact with the change in discrimination acuity.

The experiment consisted of four sessions (two motor conditions and two non-motor conditions), with a 5-minute interval between sessions. In one session, 14 combinations (2 target force × 7 loudness levels) with ten repetitions were tested in random order (140 trials in total). We carried out two types of sequences for the sessions: 1) the motor and non-motor conditions were alternately conducted, or 2) the motor condition was repeated twice, and then the non-motor condition was repeated twice. The pattern of sessions was counterbalanced among participants.

Data analysis

We calculated the probability that the participants perceived the second sound as louder for each amplitude of the comparison stimuli. A psychometric function was obtained by fitting cumulative Gaussians using a maximum-likelihood procedure separately for the motor and non-motor conditions. Based on the fitted psychometric curve, we obtained the point of subjective equality (PSE) and the just noticeable difference (JND). The JND was defined as half the difference of the comparison tone magnitude judged as louder on 75% and judged as louder on 25% of trials. Based on the previous study, we expected that the JND value would be smaller in the motor condition than in the non-motor condition, suggesting that the participant could better discriminate between the standard and comparison stimuli in the motor condition. The PSE was calculated at a 50% level of judgment probability in the estimated psychometric function. The higher PSE value represents that the participant perceived the standard stimulus as louder than the comparison stimulus. The JND, PSE, and reaction times were analyzed using a mixed-design ANOVA. The between-participant variable was the experience factor (Pianist/Non-musician). Within-participant variables were motor factor (motor/non-motor) and force factor (1N/ 4N). For post-hoc tests, we applied a simple main effect test when the interaction was observed.

In order to examine a relationship between years of piano experience and the current enhancement effect, we examined a Pearson’s product-moment correlation between number of years of piano experience and improvement of discrimination acuity. We also examined a correlation of years of piano experience with discrimination performance in non-motor and motor conditions respectively. In this analysis, averaged JNDs in the two force conditions were applied since we did not find any difference in force conditions (See Results). We carried out t-test to examine whether the correlations were significant.

Results

Fig 2A shows the JND values for each motor condition across the two task force amplitudes. We found that the main effect of experience factor was significant (F(1, 32) = 8.87, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.22), indicating that the pianist group showed smaller JND values than the non-musician group. We also found that the main effect of motor factors was significant (F(1, 32) = 15.00, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.32), indicating that the motor condition led to smaller JND values than the non-motor condition. We did not find a significant main effect of force factor (F(1, 32) = 2.88, p = 0.10). No interactions were significant: experience × motor factors (F(1, 32) = 1.24, p = 0.27), motor × force factors (F(1, 32) = 1.18, p = 0.29), experience × force factors (F(1, 32) = 0.00, p = 0.97), and three-way interaction (F(1, 32) = 0.21, p = 0.65).

Fig 2

Mean values of (A) just-noticeable difference (JND), (B) point of subjective equality (PSE) and (C) reaction time. The solid line with filled circles represents motor condition, and the dashed line with open circles represents non-motor condition. Error bars show the standard error across the participants. PSE is represented as a value relative to 65 dB, which　is the amplitude of standard stimulus.

Additionally, we verified in detail a relationship between each condition by using a separate t-test in JND. We specifically focused on a comparison between the two groups in non-motor condition to verify a difference of basic performance, and a comparison between the motor condition of the non-musician group and the non-motor condition of musician group. Since we did not find any significant difference in the force factor, we took an average across force conditions. We found a reliable difference between the groups (t(32) = 2.58, p < 0.05), suggesting that the pianist group had a better auditory acuity than the non-musician group. In addition, JND in the motor condition of the non-musician group was not significantly different from that in the non-motor condition in the pianist group (t(32) = 0.10, p = 0.93), suggesting that the non-musician group improved the auditory acuity at the level of basic performance of the pianist group.

In analysis of Pearson’s product-moment correlation, the number of years of piano experience was not significantly correlated with JND in non-motor condition (r = 0.31, t(15) = 1.25, p = 0.23), in motor condition (r = 0.38, t(15) = 1.58, p = 0.13), and JND difference between non-motor and motor condition (r = 0.14, t(15) = 0.56, p = 0.58).

In the PSE (Fig 2B), we found a significant difference in the force factor (F(1, 32) = 13.40, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.30). The PSE values in the 1N condition were significantly larger than those in the 4N condition. The other main effects were not significant: experience factor (F(1, 32) = 1.17, p = 0.29) or motor factor (F(1, 32) = 0.36, p = 0.55). We also did not find any interaction effect: experience × motor factors (F(1, 32) = 0.63, p = 0.43), experience × force factors (F(1, 32) = 0.36, p = 0.55), and motor × force factors (F(1, 32) = 0.01, p = 0.94), or thee-way interaction (F(1, 32) = 0.43, p = 0.52).

As for the reaction times, we found a significant interaction between experience and motor factors (F(1, 32) = 5.56, p < 0.05; ηp2 = 0.15). We did not find any significant difference in any of the three main effects: experience factor (F(1, 32) = 0.27, p = 0.61), motor factor (F(1, 32) = 2.67, p = 0.11), and force factor (F(1, 32) = 0.61, p = 0.44)], or in the other interaction effects: piano × force factors (F(1, 32) = 0.94, p = 0.34), motor × force factors (F(1, 32) = 1.04, p = 0.32), and three-way interaction (F(1, 32) = 0.06, p = 0.81). Simple main effect tests showed that the difference in reaction time between the motor and non-motor conditions was significant in the non-musician group (F(1, 32) = 8.00, p < 0.01; ηp2 = 0.31), but not in the pianist group (F(1, 32) = 0.26, p = 0.62). On the other hand, simple main effects between groups were not significant in the motor condition (F(1, 32) = 0.42, p = 0.52) or in the non-motor condition (F(1, 32) = 2.46, p = 0.12). The results suggested that the motor task differently affected the processing time for the loudness discrimination task depending on the musical experience.

In summary, we found that discrimination of sound loudness improved when the sound was generated by the motor task in both the pianist and non-musician groups. In basic auditory performance (without motor task), the pianist group showed better discrimination acuity than the non-musician group. In perceptual bias, the presented sound in the 1N condition was perceived louder than in the 4N condition in both motor and non-motor conditions. The non-musician group reacted faster in the motor condition than in the non-motor condition. However, we did not find such a difference in the pianist group.

Discussion

The current study aimed to examine whether the change in loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sounds [9] was dependent on musical experience. We compared the changes in loudness discrimination acuity between pianist and non-musician groups. The pianist group showed generally higher discrimination acuity than the non-musician group, consistent with pianists having better auditory perception than non-musicians because of their musical training [1, 2, 18]. Since there were not significant correlations between the number of years of piano experience and discrimination acuity, having education at a music college, regardless of the number of years, may be important. As shown in a previous study, the motor task to generate stimulus sounds improved the loudness discrimination acuity. The magnitudes of change were similar in both groups, as indicated by the lack of a statistically significant interaction. The number of years of piano experience in the pianist group was not correlated with the amount of enhancement of discrimination acuity. Contrary to our expectation that pianists would be more sensitive to different amplitudes of the produced force for self-generated sound, we found no modulation related to the amplitude of the produced force in either group. As a separate effect resulting from the motor task, we found that reaction time was facilitated in the non-musician group but not in the pianist group. In summary, the current results indicate that sound generation movement enhances loudness discrimination acuity similarly in the pianist and non-musician groups.

As seen in musical experts, there is the idea that auditory-motor experience via long-time training results in better auditory abilities [19, 20]. Improvements in auditory ability were seen in non-musicians with a brief training period as a change in auditory cortical responses [21, 22]. However, it is unclear what components in auditory-motor training help to improve auditory performance, although auditory-motor interactions are expected to contribute. The present study showed that the auditory-motor task itself could improve auditory performance in online processing.

Musical experience and training can improve somatosensory-motor interactions or representations [5, 6]. As a result, musical experts showed better precision in somatosensory processing and motor performance. We expected that better performance in somatosensory and motor processing might also affect the processing of auditory sounds produced by their own movements. However, experience-dependent changes in auditory-motor interactions were not observed in the current context. Although we did not use a piano keyboard for our motor task to investigate somatosensory and motor precision as in other studies, the possible effect of using a device other than a piano keyboard for motor tasks would be small because the effect of pitch perception due to the pianist’s finger movements was similarly induced in both conditions—with a piano keyboard and a computer keyboard [10]. Since we found a similar change in discrimination acuity due to motor tasks in the pianist and non-musician groups, the auditory-motor interaction may not be the function acquired or improved through training or development; rather, it can be a more basic process in auditory-motor function.

The results showed that the motor task facilitated the reaction times of loudness discrimination in the non-musician group, but not in the pianist group. In general, reaction time reflects processing time concerning sound encoding, decision making by comparing the sounds, and motor execution to respond. This processing time can be affected by sensorimotor experience and cognitive load. In our result, the reaction time of the non-musician group in the motor condition was similar to that of the pianist group. This difference between pianists and non-musicians indicates a difference in the processing time of the auditory task. Considering that pianists respond to auditory presentation faster than non-musicians due to musical experience [23], the pianist group may be familiar with comparing sound loudness and discriminating loudness differences, and thereby, showed similar performance in both motor and non-motor conditions such as flooring effect. Meanwhile, non-musicians may require more time for loudness discrimination in externally generated sounds. Since the motor task improved reaction time in the non-musician group to raise them to the same level of basic performance as the pianist group, the motor task can also help non-musicians have the same level of ability as a musician in loudness discrimination. This may be because sound loudness can be perceived more correctly with the motor task in the auditory processing prior to the judgment of loudness discrimination.

In our results, the interaction effect in reaction time was found, while it was not seen in the JND results. Our previous study [9] showed that the change in reaction time did not always correlate with the change in JND, suggesting the possibility of the modulation of reaction time arising from a source other than the one for the current facilitatory effect in loudness discrimination. Considering a debate between whether the perceptual changes in sound generation movement are influenced by the motor function itself and whether they are associated with changes in higher cognitive functions [24-26], the current perceptual changes in loudness discrimination acuity may be ascribed to the former. This possible interaction mechanism can also support the idea that the current facilitatory effect is a fundamental function that is not influenced by musical experience.

We found that the PSE values changed between force conditions. Since this change was seen in both motor and non-motor conditions, this can be due to the effect of visual presentation. A larger contrast of visual cursor speed, which is related to a larger contrast of the force, may induce changes in PSE value of auditory perception. This is consistent with previous studies, including our previous study, a contrast of visual information affects auditory perception [27-30]. Although this visual influence on auditory perception is important to understand sensory mechanism, we did not pursue this effect in the current study since this is beyond our scope.

Our results also showed that the discrimination acuity in the non-musician group was improved to the same level as the base performance in the pianist group (passive listening without sound generation movement). This suggests that non-musicians can possibly perform at a similar level as musicians’ auditory perception when a sound is produced by a specific type of motor task, such as practicing with a musical instrument. Considering the experience-independent nature of the current facilitatory effect, a repetitive experience of better auditory situations with motor tasks may play a role in acquiring better auditory performance as a result of training with a musical instrument.

Temporal consistency is important for the interaction between auditory processing and other modality of processing including motor execution [31-35]. In the study of self-generated sound, delay of 200 ms or more are particularly critical to induce auditory cortical responses of self-generated sound [33]. In the current study, we tested synchronous condition that the auditory stimulus was produced when the motor task was achieved. This 200 ms of time window may be also applied into the current enhancement of discrimination acuity. Further investigation is required.

In conclusion, the current study demonstrated that both non-musicians and pianists similarly benefited from the enhancement of sound discrimination with the auditory-motor task. The study also reaffirmed that musicians have greater auditory ability than non-musicians. The current study has strengthened the understanding of the perception of self-generated sound and increased our knowledge about how perception can be more accurate using motor function [7, 9]. These findings may have implications for auditory training through playing musical instruments and the mechanism of musical expertise.

24 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-23155Enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sound is independent of musical experiencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nakazawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

I should apologize for taking so much time to response to the authors at this moment. I received this manuscript at the end of July, and from there I sought the reviewers, and the reviewers responded promptly. But as a result, it was a so late response from the editor to the authors.The comment from the reviewers have all been positive and I believe that a few corrections would greatly improve the manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kenichi Shibuya, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the submitted manuscript, the authors conducted a study to examine whether loudness discrimination acuity is more enhanced by musical experience.

34 young participants (17 pianists) listened to two sequential pure tones and were asked to sort out perceived loudness. In motor task condition, the first tone was produced when a load sensor was pressed by a finger (with a force of 1N or 5N). Several performance metrics such as just noiceable difference, point of subjective equality, and reaction time were measured.

Overally, the manuscript was well organized and the results were reasonably communicated. This paper is almost ready to be accepted by Plos one journal, however, the manuscript has several weaknesses that should be addressed prior to publication:

1. Line 80. The authors recruited non-musical participants, who have less than five years of musical experience. However, the term musical experience seems somewhat vague and should be further specified.

2. Line 97. Did the authors measure audiograms? Since this study used preset conditions of sound pressure (i.e., 62~68dB SPL), individual difference of hearing ability might have affected the results.

3. Line 102. Please provide a short reason why 65 dB SPL (why not 70~80?) was set as standard stimulus.

4. Line 125. Even if the previous work of the authors used an upper limit of the production force as target level + 0.5 N, the value should be specified in this manuscript as well for reader's comprehension. Furthermore, authors would be better to explain why the fixed value (0.5 N) is used rather than relative value (e.g., 120% of target level).

5. Line 126. The present study used force conditions of 1 N and 4 N. However, why these values were selected needs to be further addressed.

6. Line 175. Please provide more information on how to interpret the plot, specifically the PSE. The higher value means the perceived loudness is overrated?

7. Line 267. Please specify the meaning of reaction time in this study. One might not understand that it reflects composite stages of cognitive processing such as encoding and mental processing.

8. Line 277. This is a major concern. A clarification and deeper explanation is dutiful on the effects of force conditions obtained in this study. How visual stimuli affected auditory perception? Is it the sole cause of the current results?

Reviewer #2: The current study examined whether musical experience modulates an effect of loudness discrimination improvement by a self-generated motor response. Specifically, following the author’s previous study (Endo et al., 2021) that precise self-generated action improves loudness discrimination, in the current study, they further examined whether the previously found motor-auditory enhancement differs between musicians (pianists) and non-musician groups. Results showed no significant difference between the groups in the motor-auditory enhancement, whereas pianists generally showed better auditory acuity than non-musicians.

The motor-auditory enhancement phenomenon is interesting, the research motivation is clear, and the manuscript is well written. However, I have some concerns about the null result and its interpretations. Details are listed in the following.

First of all, it is unclear why the self-generated action improves loudness discrimination. Without a clear hypothesis, it is confusing whether enhanced motor-sound training experience like pianists would show stronger or weaker motor-auditory enhancement effect. It made it difficult to judge whether the non-different motor-auditory enhancement between the groups is due to other factors like floor effect or some kind of cancelation among different factors. If the authors try more factors/parameters, may they find the modulation by the musical experience?

Related to the first issue, in the abstract, the authors state that “the loudness discrimination acuity is enhanced when sound is produced by a precise force generation task,” what does “precise” mean? Does it refer to the timing of the sound and the action, or other correspondence between them? In other words, is the synchrony between the sound and action critical to evoke this motor-auditory enhancement? Or does the relationship between the action force and sound intensity modulate the effect? I am not sure if the authors have explored these factors in their previous studies, but if yes, it would be clearer to elaborate more about the possible underlying mechanism of this motor-auditory enhancement phenomenon and to make a clearer hypothesis as to how enhanced motor-sound training influences the effect. As the authors mentioned in p.11, “pianist might show a change in facilitatory effect depending on the amplitude of the produced force due to their greater experience of sensorimotor performance on the piano playing,” is it possible that the result would be different if more parameters are investigated, such as the synchrony between the sound and action and the correspondence of the finger force and sound intensity?

In Abstract, line 24, “Without the force generation task, loudness discrimination acuity and reaction time were better in pianists than non-musicians in the condition,” the statement about the reaction time seems incorrect as “the simple main effects between groups were not significant in the motor condition or in the non-motor condition” (p.19, line 201-204).

In the Result session, the second paragraph, line 177-185, I am not sure if it makes sense to perform the t-tests there, under the condition the ANOVA results have been reported.

In the Discussion session, line 236, “The present study showed that the auditory-motor task itself could improve auditory performance in online processing.” Can the task be considered an auditory-motor task, while the participant did not need any coordination between the sound and motor demand (if my understanding is correct)?

Reviewer #3: This manuscript examined the effect of musical experience on enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity in conjunction with a force generation task. This is of interest, but this reviewer raises some concerns.

MAJOR

It needs to be argued whether it is reasonable to use the enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity to evaluate the pianist's auditory-motor interaction with the force generation task that took place one second earlier. One second seems like a considerable amount of time in the flow of the music, so it is doubtful that the work done one second later has anything to do with the music.

The authors are examining the influence of musical experience, so they need to describe the influence of years of experience or level of music.

If the effects cannot be described, it is not possible to discuss the effects of music experience, though negative. Because the effects could be due to acquirement by musical practice and innate effects. Besides this is a cross-sectional study. A lot of wording needs to be changed to cautious expressions in this regard, e.g., L67 piano experience.

MINOR

L 55. Aide (typo)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

12 Oct 2021

Response to Reviewer 1:

1. Line 80. The authors recruited non-musical participants, who have less than five years of musical experience. However, the term musical experience seems somewhat vague and should be further specified.

-We specified this point at ll.83-85.

2. Line 97. Did the authors measure audiograms? Since this study used preset conditions of sound pressure (i.e., 62~68dB SPL), individual difference of hearing ability might have affected the results.

-We did not measure audiograms. We think individual difference in hearing threshold would not be too much of issue in our context, since we focused on a relative change between conditions. We expect that the change can be induced regardless of any difference in hearing threshold. In addition, since the sound pressure level that we used was enough above the hearing threshold that can be expected in the participants who have normal hearing, the participants can be perceived our stimulus sound effortlessly. This is supported by the measured JND value in the current task that was smaller than 1dB.

3. Line 102. Please provide a short reason why 65 dB SPL (why not 70~80?) was set as standard stimulus.

-We set this amplitude as comfortable level by participants reports in our preliminary experiment. We added this explanation at ll.109-110.

4. Line 125. Even if the previous work of the authors used an upper limit of the production force as target level + 0.5 N, the value should be specified in this manuscript as well for reader's comprehension. Furthermore, authors would be better to explain why the fixed value (0.5 N) is used rather than relative value (e.g., 120% of target level).

-In the previous study (Endo et al., 2021), the target level + 0.5N for the upper limit was used in the Experiment1 when we present a target level was presented in a different height. The procedure in the current paper was similar to Experiment2 when we present a target level at the same height with the different velocity of cursor movement. In order to make the same visual presentation across different force conditions, we used a relative value, which was 125% of target level for the upper limit. As showed in the previous study, the difference concerning the upper limitation does not affect the current effect of JND change. We clarified the setting of upper limitation at ll.128-129.

5. Line 126. The present study used force conditions of 1 N and 4 N. However, why these values were selected needs to be further addressed.

-Based on our preliminary experiment, 1N is a minimum level to achieve the current task with our experimental setup, and 4N is a maximum level that the participants are able to complete the current experiment without feeling much of fatigue. With an expectation of a clear contrast between force conditions, we selected these two force conditions based on our previous study. We added this point at ll.133-134.

6. Line 175. Please provide more information on how to interpret the plot, specifically the PSE. The higher value means the perceived loudness is overrated?

-We added an explanation at ll.162-163.

7. Line 267. Please specify the meaning of reaction time in this study. One might not understand that it reflects composite stages of cognitive processing such as encoding and mental processing.

-We added an explanation at ll.281-284 in the previous paragraph instead, since reaction time was first shown up there.

8. Line 277. This is a major concern. A clarification and deeper explanation is dutiful on the effects of force conditions obtained in this study. How visual stimuli affected auditory perception? Is it the sole cause of the current results?

-Considering our experimental procedure, we think the visual presentation can be a possible source to induce changes in PSE value. As shown in previous studies, a contrast of visual stimuli affects auditory perception. Although we fully agreed that this visual effect in auditory perception is an interesting topic, this is beyond the scope of the present paper and we would like to pursue this topic in the future. We clarified this point at ll.309-313.

Response to Reviewer 2:

1.First of all, it is unclear why the self-generated action improves loudness discrimination. Without a clear hypothesis, it is confusing whether enhanced motor-sound training experience like pianists would show stronger or weaker motor-auditory enhancement effect. It made it difficult to judge whether the non-different motor-auditory enhancement between the groups is due to other factors like floor effect or some kind of cancelation among different factors. If the authors try more factors/parameters, may they find the modulation by the musical experience?

-We clarified our hypothesis in the Introduction (ll.64-67). In the current experiment, we found a different baseline depending on the musical experience, since the JND was different between pianists and non-musicians in the non-motor condition. For the enhancement with motor task, which is the focus of this study, there was no difference between pianists and non-musicians. As an additional analysis, we tried to correlate enhancement with the number of years of experience within the pianist, but there was no significant correlation (see ll.203-210). Therefore, we conclude that motor enhancement is independent of experience.

2.Related to the first issue, in the abstract, the authors state that “the loudness discrimination acuity is enhanced when sound is produced by a precise force generation task,” what does “precise” mean? Does it refer to the timing of the sound and the action, or other correspondence between them? In other words, is the synchrony between the sound and action critical to evoke this motor-auditory enhancement? Or does the relationship between the action force and sound intensity modulate the effect? I am not sure if the authors have explored these factors in their previous studies, but if yes, it would be clearer to elaborate more about the possible underlying mechanism of this motor-auditory enhancement phenomenon and to make a clearer hypothesis as to how enhanced motor-sound training influences the effect.

-As for the word "precise", we use it in the meaning that the force is generated close to the target with precise adjustment. In the sound generation task used in previous studies, this precision of force generation has not been taken into account because the previous demands of motor task were to overshoot the produced force by a specific threshold for sound generation, in which the amplitude of force was depended on the individuals. As a result, the results in those previous studies were not consistent, such as enhancement or attenuation. Therefore, “precise force control”, which is used in our studies, is the key to enhancement of discrimination acuity. This point was clarified in the Introduction by responding the first question.

Regarding the timing, we did not test in the current study. In response to a comment of Reviewer 3, we added one paragraph about the topic for timing in the Discussion (ll.322-332).

As for the difference in the magnitude of the force, we reported in the current paper that there is no effect into the current auditory task. This result is consistent with our previous results (Endo et al. 2021).

3. As the authors mentioned in p.11, “pianist might show a change in facilitatory effect depending on the amplitude of the produced force due to their greater experience of sensorimotor performance on the piano playing,” is it possible that the result would be different if more parameters are investigated, such as the synchrony between the sound and action and the correspondence of the finger force and sound intensity?

-We added a correlation analysis between the year of piano experience and amplitudes of the current effect. The result still supports the current findings that the enhancement of discrimination acuity is not related to musical experience. In the current context, we conclude that the current effect can be independent of musical experience and it could be possible to find the dependent effect in a different context.

4. In Abstract, line 24, “Without the force generation task, loudness discrimination acuity and reaction time were better in pianists than non-musicians in the condition,” the statement about the reaction time seems incorrect as “the simple main effects between groups were not significant in the motor condition or in the non-motor condition” (p.19, line 201-204).

-Reviewer is right. We corrected the sentence (l.24). Thanks.

5. In the Result session, the second paragraph, lines 177-185, I am not sure if it makes sense to perform the t-tests there, under the condition the ANOVA results have been reported.

-We applied t-test as a post-hoc analysis to verify this enhancement in detail between each condition. Specifically, we would like to verify a difference in basic auditory performance (non-motor condition) between the groups, and to verify how much performance in non-musician group was improved due to motor task by refering base auditory performance in musician group. We clarified this point in ll. 198-202.

6. In the Discussion session, line 236, “The present study showed that the auditory-motor task itself could improve auditory performance in online processing.” Can the task be considered an auditory-motor task, while the participant did not need any coordination between the sound and motor demand (if my understanding is correct)?

-The current task can be considered as auditory-motor task because the stimulus sound was presented with achievement of the motor task that is to reach the produced force at a target force amplitude. Specifically, by setting an upper limit, the participants were required to produce precisely the target force amplitude. We described this point in the Methods.

Response to Reviewer 3:

MAJOR

1. It needs to be argued whether it is reasonable to use the enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity to evaluate the pianist's auditory-motor interaction with the force generation task that took place one second earlier. One second seems like a considerable amount of time in the flow of the music, so it is doubtful that the work done one second later has anything to do with the music.

-We added a paragraph about a possibility of temporal synchrony in the Discussion (ll.322-332).

2. The authors are examining the influence of musical experience, so they need to describe the influence of years of experience or level of music.

If the effects cannot be described, it is not possible to discuss the effects of music experience, though negative. Because the effects could be due to acquirement by musical practice and innate effects. Besides this is a cross-sectional study. A lot of wording needs to be changed to cautious expressions in this regard, e.g., L67 piano experience.

-We added a correlation analysis between years of musical experience and amplitude of the current enhancement effect. The result support the idea that musical experience is independent of the current enhancement effect. We added this result in the Results and Discussion sections. As a response to Reviewer1's comment, we also added an explanation concerning the level of music for the non-musician group.

MINOR

3. L 55. Aide (typo)

-We corrected. Thanks.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-23155R1Enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sound is independent of musical experiencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nakazawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Only Reviewer 2 has asked the authors to make one correction. Please respond to the comment raised by Reviewer 2 and re-submit the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kenichi Shibuya, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The revision clarified the preciously raised concerns. I appreciate the author’s efforts and recommend publication. There is just one minor comment about the added correlation analyses. It was not described clearly how exactly the author performed the analyses. For example, did they perform Pearson or Spearman correlation, or others? Did they perform the t-test on the correlations (l. 210-214)?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hsin-I Liao

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Nov 2021

Response to Reviewer #2:

Comment: The revision clarified the preciously raised concerns. I appreciate the author’s efforts and recommend publication. There is just one minor comment about the added correlation analyses. It was not described clearly how exactly the author performed the analyses. For example, did they perform Pearson or Spearman correlation, or others? Did they perform the t-test on the correlations (l. 210-214)?

Response: We carried out Pearson’s product-moment correlation (Pearson’s correlation) and t-test on the correlations. We added this point in the method (l.170, 175) and the result (l.207). Thanks.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Nov 2021

Enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sound is independent of musical experience

PONE-D-21-23155R2

Dear Dr. Nakazawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kenichi Shibuya, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

25 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-23155R2

Enhancement of loudness discrimination acuity for self-generated sound is independent of musical experience

Dear Dr. Nakazawa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kenichi Shibuya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE