Music and Visual Art Training Modulate Brain Activity in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive decline is an unavoidable aspect of aging that impacts important behavioral and cognitive skills. Training programs can improve cognition, yet precise characterization of the psychological and neural underpinnings supporting different training programs is lacking. Here, we assessed the effect and maintenance (3-month follow-up) of 3-month music and visual art training programs on neuroelectric brain activity in older adults using a partially randomized intervention design. During the pre-, post-, and follow-up test sessions, participants completed a brief neuropsychological assessment. High-density EEG was measured while participants were presented with auditory oddball paradigms (piano tones, vowels) and during a visual GoNoGo task. Neither training program significantly impacted psychometric measures, compared to a non-active control group. However, participants enrolled in the music and visual art training programs showed enhancement of auditory evoked responses to piano tones that persisted for up to 3 months after training ended, suggesting robust and long-lasting neuroplastic effects. Both music and visual art training also modulated visual processing during the GoNoGo task, although these training effects were relatively short-lived and disappeared by the 3-month follow-up. Notably, participants enrolled in the visual art training showed greater changes in visual evoked response (i.e., N1 wave) amplitude distribution than those from the music or control group. Conversely, those enrolled in music showed greater response associated with inhibitory control over the right frontal scalp areas than those in the visual art group. Our findings reveal a causal relationship between art training (music and visual art) and neuroplastic changes in sensory systems, with some of the neuroplastic changes being specific to the training regimen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".