4.6 Article

Same Genes, Different Brains: Neuroanatomical Differences Between Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Musical Training

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 387-394

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhx299

关键词

expertise; MRI; music; neuroanatomy; twins

资金

  1. Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation [M11-0451:1]
  2. Sven and Dagmar Salen Foundation
  3. Kjell and Marta Beijer Foundation
  4. Hjarnfonden [FO2015-0267]
  5. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [M11-0451:1] Funding Source: Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous cross-sectional and observational longitudinal studies show associations between expertise and regional brain anatomy. However, since these designs confound training with genetic predisposition, the causal role of training remains unclear. Here, we use a discordant monozygotic (identical) twin design to study expertise-dependent effects on neuroanatomy using musical training as model behavior, while essentially controlling for genetic factors and shared environment of upbringing. From a larger cohort of monozygotic twins, we were able to recruit 18 individuals (9 pairs) that were highly discordant for piano practice. We used structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging to analyze the auditory-motor network and within-pair differences in cortical thickness, cerebellar regional volumes and white-matter microstructure/fractional anisotropy. The analyses revealed that the musically active twins had greater cortical thickness in the auditory-motor network of the left hemisphere and more developed white matter microstructure in relevant tracts in both hemispheres and the corpus callosum. Furthermore, the volume of gray matter in the left cerebellar region of interest comprising lobules I-IV + V, was greater in the playing group. These findings provide the first clear support for that a significant portion of the differences in brain anatomy between experts and nonexperts depend on causal effects of training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据