| Literature DB >> 35957202 |
Dathan C Gleichmann1, John F L Pinner2, Christopher Garcia2, Jaynie H Hakeem3, Piyadasa Kodituwakku4, Julia M Stephen1.
Abstract
Prior studies indicate differences in brain volume and neurophysiological responses of musicians relative to non-musicians. These differences are observed in the sensory, motor, parietal, and frontal cortex. Children with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) experience deficits in auditory, motor, and executive function domains. Therefore, we hypothesized that short-term music training in children with an FASD due to prenatal alcohol exposure may improve brain function. Children (N = 20) with an FASD were randomized to participate in either five weeks of piano training or to a control group. Selective attention was evaluated approximately seven weeks apart (pre-/post-music training or control intervention), examining longitudinal effects using the Attention Networks Test (ANT), a well-established paradigm designed to evaluate attention and inhibitory control, while recording EEG. There was a significant group by pre-/post-intervention interaction for the P250 ms peak of the event-related potential and for theta (4-7 Hz) power in the 100-300 ms time window in response to the congruent condition when the flanking stimuli were oriented congruently with the central target stimulus in fronto-central midline channels from Cz to Fz. A trend for improved reaction time at the second assessment was observed for the music trained group only. These results support the hypothesis that music training changes the neural indices of attention as assessed by the ANT in children with an FASD. This study should be extended to evaluate the effects of music training relative to a more closely matched active control and determine whether additional improvements emerge with longer term music training.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; attention networks test; fetal alcohol spectrum disorders; music training; neurodevelopment; prenatal alcohol exposure
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957202 PMCID: PMC9370928 DOI: 10.3390/s22155642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1A depiction of the Attention Networks Test (ANT) displaying the four possible cues presented in the lower left corner, the three possible Target conditions of solo, congruent and incongruent in the lower right corner and the correct vs. incorrect feedback conditions presented in the upper right corner. The + denotes the position on the screen at which the child is asked to fixate. The * denotes where the child’s attention should be directed for the Target stimulus. The blue circles denote the fish “eating” as a correct response. The colors of the background and the fish were chosen in the original task to engage children. The sequential boxes demonstrate the timing of the display of each component of the trial. The presentation of the cues and conditions are randomized across trials.
Demographic characteristics.
| Music Training | Control | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean, SD) | 7.67 (1.80) | 8.00 (1.87) | 0.72 |
| Sex (Male/Female) | 6/3 | 5/3 | 0.85 |
| Diagnosis (FAS/pFAS/ARND) | 5/0/4 | 0/2/6 | 0.20 |
| KBIT Verbal (mean, SD) | 88.44 (17.17) | 85.00 (11.13) | 0.64 |
| KBIT Nonverbal (mean, SD) | 92.33 (12.09) | 95.40 (8.44) | 0.56 |
| KBIT Composite (mean, SD) | 88.89 (14.65) | 88.00 (9.89) | 0.89 |
| Tonal (mean, SD) | 29.11 (4.70) | 32.80 (1.92) | 0.056 |
| Rhythm (mean, SD) | 28.55 (4.39) | 28.80 (2.77) | 0.89 |
| ANT Hits RT Pre (ms; mean, SEM) | 1029 (53.1) | 1000 (60.3) | 0.31 |
| ANT Hits RT Post (ms; mean, SEM) | 898 (52.6) | 1017 (59.7) | 0.0006 |
| ANT #epochs Session1-Congruent | 35.3 (2.1) | 34.7 (3.3) | 0.71 |
| ANT #epochs Session2-Congruent | 33.1 (3.2) | 31.4 (3.5) | 0.36 |
ANT Attention RTs (ms): Mean (standard deviation).
| Condition | MT-Pre | MT-Post | Control-Pre | Control-Post |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alterting RT | 58 (101) | 110 (75) | 15 (53) | 87 (132) |
| Orienting RT | 45 (73) | 77 (74) | 51 (86) | 62 (100) |
| Conflict RT | 139 (99) | 146 (76) | 199 (112) | 116 (91) |
Figure 2(A) The group averaged ERP waveform from the midline fronto-central averaged EEG electrodes for the pre-/post-training EEG sessions for controls (CT) and music trained (MT) participants. The peak latencies and amplitudes were chosen from the 200–300 ms time window (gray shading) using ERPlab. (B) The average peak amplitude of the positive peak in the 200–300 ms time window for pre-/post- EEG sessions. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. (C) Pre- (top) and post- (bottom) ERSPs for control (left) and MT (right) groups are shown with the black box denoting the time frequency window of mean theta power evaluated for group by time point-interactions. The ERSP for the A1 electrode is shown.
ANT ERP amplitudes and latencies pre-/post-intervention.
| Condition | MT-Pre | MT-Post | Control-Pre | Control-Post |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amplitude (μV) | ||||
| Solo | 3.37 (1.97) | 5.21 (2.74) | 4.13 (1.77) | 1.71 (1.10) |
| Congruent | 3.48 (1.76) | 5.60 (2.66) | 4.78 (2.66) | 2.30 (0.78) |
| Incongruent | 3.88 (2.10) | 5.75 (3.72) | 4.12 (2.25) | 2.77 (1.63) |
| Latency (ms) | ||||
| Solo | 244 (27) | 261 (29) | 252 (24) | 238 (18) |
| Congruent | 243 (23) | 232 (25) | 241 (29) | 251 (23) |
| Incongruent | 240 (21) | 242 (23) | 237 (19) | 239 (11) |
ANT ERP statistical analysis results.
| Condition | Solo | Congruent | Incongruent | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amplitude | F-statistic | F-statistic | F-statistic | |||
| Pre-Post | 0.15 | 0.71 | 0.08 | 0.78 | 0.08 | 0.77 |
| Group | 3.33 | 0.093 | 1.17 | 0.3 | 1.68 | 0.22 |
| Pre-Post × Group | 8.11 | 0.015 * | 12.6 | 0.004 * | 3.49 | 0.086 |
| Latency | ||||||
| Pre-Post | 0.06 | 0.81 | 0.004 | 0.952 | 0.16 | 0.70 |
| Group | 0.39 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.11 | 0.75 |
| Pre-Post × Group | 8.21 | 0.014 * | 1.35 | 0.267 | 0.01 | 0.92 |
* Significant at corrected p-value of 0.05/3 = 0.016.