4.7 Article

The musician's brain: functional imaging of amateurs and professionals during performance and imagery

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 1817-1829

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.07.018

关键词

music; motor learning; imagery; string players; fMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared activation maps of professional and amateur violinists during actual and imagined performance of Mozart's violin concerto in G major (KV216). Execution and imagination of (left hand) fingering movements of the first 16 bars of the concerto were performed. Electromyography (EMG) feedback was used during imagery training to avoid actual movement execution and EMG recording was employed during the scanning of both executed and imagined musical performances. We observed that professional musicians generated higher EMG amplitudes during movement execution and showed focused cerebral activations in the contralateral primary sensorimotor cortex, the bilateral superior parietal lobes, and the ipsilateral anterior cerebellar hemisphere. The finding that professionals exhibited higher activity of the right primary auditory cortex during execution may reflect an increased strength of audio-motor associative connectivity. It appears that during execution of musical sequences in professionals, a higher economy of motor areas frees resources for increased connectivity between the finger sequences and auditory as well as somatosensory loops, which may account for the superior musical performance. Professionals also demonstrated more focused activation patterns during imagined musical performance. However, the auditory-motor loop was not involved during imagined performances in either musician group. It seems that the motor and auditory systems are coactivated as a consequence of musical training but only if one system (motor or auditory) becomes activated by actual movement execution or live musical auditory stimuli. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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