Was Steven Pinker right after all? [Part 2]

At the end of the 1990s, cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker infamously characterized music as “auditory cheesecake”: a delightful dessert but, from an evolutionary perspective, no more than a by-product of language. But Pinker was probably right when he wrote: “I suspect music is auditory cheesecake, an exquisite confection crafted to tickle the sensitive spots of...our mental faculties.” Or, to express his idea less graphically: music affects our brains at specific places, thereby stimulating the production of unique substances that have a pleasurable effect on our mood. However, rather than a by-product of evolution, music or more precisely musicality is likely to be a characteristic that survived natural selection in order to stimulate and develop our mental faculties (cf. Honing, 2011).

Pinker’s idea may actually be a very fruitful hypothesis whose significance has wrongfully gone unacknowledged because of all the criticism it elicited. After all, the purely evolutionary explanations for the origins of music largely overlook the experience of music we all share: the pleasure we derive from it, not only from the acrobatics of making it but also from the act of listening to it.

Last week Science published a study (a follow-up of Salimpoor et al., 2011) in which Canadian researchers were able to show precisely that: Music can arouse feelings of euphoria and craving, similar to tangible rewards that involve the striatal dopaminergic system. They were able to show that intense pleasure in response to music can lead to dopamine release in the striatal system, most notably the nucleus accumbens. And, more importantly, the anticipation of an abstract reward can result in dopamine release in an anatomical pathway distinct from that associated with the peak pleasure itself.

Salimpoor, V., van den Bosch, I., Kovacevic, N., McIntosh, A., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. (2013). Interactions Between the Nucleus Accumbens and Auditory Cortices Predict Music Reward Value Science, 340 (6129), 216-219 DOI: 10.1126/science.1231059

Salimpoor, V., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.2726

Honing, H. (2011) Musical Cognition. A Science of Listening. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Interested in the relation between dance and music?

Larry Parsons

On Tuesday 16 April 2013  Larry Parsons (University of Sheffield and Centre de Neuroscience Cognitive, CNRS, Lyon, France) will give a CSCA Lecture with the title Neurobiological Basis of Musical Skills and Dancing. He will present functional neuroimaging data on the brain basis of call/response singing, harmonization, improvisational singing, sight-singing duets, music learning in non-musical adults, and the performance of memorized piano pieces. Also discussed will be the relation between neural systems for melodic and sentential generation, emotional musical experiences, and the brain basis of dancing.

For more information, see the website of the CSCA.

Interested in an Assistant Professorship?

The Faculty of Humanities is searching for two Assistant Professors in Musicology (0.5 fte) in the fields of historical, cognitive or cultural musicology. They should be familiar with recent developments in the methodology of musicology and acquainted with current theoretical developments in their respective field. Experience in musical practice and/or experience with digital media and research tools is desirable.  For more information, see here. Deadline for applications is 17 April 2013.

Hebben dieren vrije tijd? [Dutch]

Tijs Goldschmidt

Op vrijdag 19 april spreekt de schrijver en evolutiebioloog Tijs Goldschmidt de derde Kousbroeklezing uit met de titel Vis in bad. De meeste dieren werken periodiek hard, maar er wordt ook veel gelummeld, gehangen en niets gedaan. Hoe kunnen ze zich dat permitteren? Hebben ze 'vrije tijd' of zijn ze schijnvrij? Een beschouwing over zonnetijd, innerlijke tijd, sociale tijd en vooral vrije tijd bij dieren inclusief de mens.

Tijs Goldschmidt is essayist en bioloog. Zijn bekendste boek is Darwins Hofvijver. Hij publiceerde ook verschillende essaybundels. Hij is advisor aan de Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten en gastschrijver van de UvA-Artisbibliotheek (Bijzondere Collecties). In 2004 was hij een van VPRO's zomergasten.

Zie hier voor meer informatie.

Doet muziek er toe? [Dutch]

KNAW Tweegesprek: stemmen van Afrika in Nederland from SPUI25 on Vimeo.

'Vocal mimicry hypothesis' falsified?

See the video below from Hattori et al. (2013):

More later this week on this blog...

Hattori, Y., Tomonaga, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2013). Spontaneous synchronized tapping to an auditory rhythm in a chimpanzee. Scientific Reports, 3 DOI: 10.1038/srep01566.

Confirmation of vocal learning hypothesis instead of falsification?

It was recently shown that rhythmic entrainment, long considered a human-specific mechanism, can be demonstrated in a select group of bird species, and, somewhat surprisingly, not in more closely related species such as nonhuman primates. This observation supports the vocal learning and synchronization hypothesis (Patel, 2006) that suggests that rhythmic entrainment is a by-product of the vocal learning mechanisms that are shared by several bird and mammal species, including humans, but that are only weakly developed, or missing entirely, in nonhuman primates. However, since no evidence of rhythmic entrainment was found in many vocal learners (including dolphins, seals, and songbirds), vocal learning may be necessary, but not sufficient for beat induction – the cognitive mechanism that supports the perception of a regular pulse from a varying rhythm.



Nevertheless, on April Fool's Day another piece of evidence – according to the authors falsifying the above mentioned hypothesis – was published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology reporting on a sea lion (Zalophus californianus) that was able to learn to entrain to the beat of music (Think of Everybody of the Backstreet Boys and Boogie Wonderland of Earth, Wind and Fire).

I have to admit that my library does not have access to the journal, so I have not been able to read the full paper as yet. But the video (included above) mentions a peculiar detail: the authors claim Sea Lions not to be vocal learners, and hence to have 'falsified' the above mentioned vocal learning and synchronization hypothesis. However, in how far pinnipeds have some level of vocal mimicking capabilities is still unclear. This combined with the fact that 'absence of evidence is no evidence of absence' (cf. Fitch [and comments below]), it seems again too early to tell...

Cook, P., Rouse, A., Wilson, M., & Reichmuth, C. (2013). A California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) Can Keep the Beat: Motor Entrainment to Rhythmic Auditory Stimuli in a Non Vocal Mimic. Journal of Comparative Psychology DOI: 10.1037/a0032345

Arnason, U., Gullberg, A., Janke, A., Kullberg, M., Lehman, N., Petrov, E., & Väinölä, R. (2006). Pinniped phylogeny and a new hypothesis for their origin and dispersal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41 (2), 345-354 DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.05.022

Why do all the songs sound the same?

Lauren Stewart

The next SMART Cognitive Science Lecture on 5 April 1013 will be presented by Lauren Stewart (Goldsmiths, University of London) 
on the topic of Congenital Amusia and will be introduced by Gábor Háden (UvA).

The ability to make sense of musical sound has been observed in every culture since the beginning of recorded history. In early infancy, it allows us to respond to the sing-song interactions from a primary caregiver and to engage in musical play. In later life it shapes our social and cultural identities and modulates our affective and emotional states. But a few percent of the population fail to develop the ability to make sense of or engage with music. Individuals with congenital amusia cannot recognize familiar tunes, cannot tell one tune from another, frequently complain that music sounds like a “din” and avoid the many social situations in which music plays a role. In her talk Lauren Stewart will present data from perceptual experiments suggesting that individuals with amusia are insensitive to pitch direction and are unable to retain pitch information in memory. In addition, she will discuss ongoing genetic and neuroimaging approaches that we are using to characterize this disorder. The study of disordered musical development sets in sharp relief the perceptual and cognitive abilities which most of us take for granted and give us a unique chance to investigate how musical perceptual ability develops, from the level of the gene to the brain development and the emergence of a complex and fundamental human behavior.

More information on time, location, and the full program see SMART website.

Stewart, L. (2011). Characterizing congenital amusia The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64 (4), 625-638 DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.552730

Can monkeys spontaneously synchronize to audio?

Setup for the three experiments (from discussed publication).

It was recently shown that rhythmic entrainment, long considered a human-specific mechanism, can be demonstrated in a select group of bird species, and, somewhat surprisingly, not in more closely related species such as nonhuman primates. This observation supports the vocal learning hypothesis that suggests that rhythmic entrainment is a by-product of the vocal learning mechanisms that are shared by several bird and mammal species, including humans, but that are only weakly developed, or missing entirely, in nonhuman primates. However, since no evidence of rhythmic entrainment was found in many vocal learners (including dolphins, seals, and songbirds), vocal learning may be necessary, but not sufficient for beat induction – the cognitive mechanism that supports the perception of a regular pulse from a varying rhythm (Honing et al., 2012).

Today a new study appeared in Nature Scientific Reports claiming to show rhythmic entrainment (or spontaneous synchronization as the authors refer to it) in the Japanese macaque (Macaca Fuscata). Intriguing! However, reading the paper it becomes clear quickly that the results might not be what they seemed at first sight.

[link to video for non-Flash supporting devices]

First, as was shown in several earlier studies, macaques can synchronize to an auditory metronome, but they tend to do this in reaction, and not in anticipation of the sound. They do not show the typical negative synchronization error: tapping or pressing a button slightly earlier than the actual sound, a sign that an anticipatory process (i.e. expectation) plays a role.

Second, it is unclear whether the experiments are evidence for rhythmic entrainment: it could well be imitative behavior. This hypothesis is actually confirmed by the third experiment in which the monkeys were asked to synchronize with a virtual monkey (see panel C above) of which the auditory and visual information was presented independently as well as combined. The monkeys performed better for the visual condition as opposed to the auditory condition. In contrast, in humans it is the opposite: rhythmic entrainment is much stronger in the auditory modality.

Lastly, the researchers only analyzed asynchronies between the button presses of the two monkeys sitting opposite to each other (see Panel B above). Therefore the results could well be simply support for an imitative, cq. reactive behavior instead of evidence for a periodic anticipatory reaction that is common to human rhythmic entrainment.

Nagasaka, Y., Chao, Z., Hasegawa, N., Notoya, T., & Fujii, N. (2013). Spontaneous synchronization of arm motion between Japanese macaques Scientific Reports, 3 DOI: 10.1038/srep01151

Honing, H., Merchant, H., Háden, G., Prado, L., & Bartolo, R. (2012). Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Detect Rhythmic Groups in Music, but Not the Beat PLoS ONE, 7 (12) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051369

Can the origins of music be studied at all?

What was the role of music in the evolutionary history of human beings? And is it possible at all, you might wonder, to study this empirically, given the fact that neither music nor musicality fossilises?* So, better forget about it?

One potential strategy to address this question is to focus on the cognitive traits that could have contributed to the origins of music and musicality (cf. Honing & Ploeger, 2012) and see in how far we share these with other animals.

While there has been quite some critique on this idea – i.e. the apparent impossibility of studying the evolution of complex cognitive processes such as intelligence (Lewontin, 1998; Bolhuis & Wynne, 2009)–, a bottom-up approach, in which one looks for the basic mechanisms that combine into a complex cognitive trait – in our case musicality –, seems an alternative and potentially fruitful way to proceed.

While it is not uncommon to see certain cognitive functions as typically human (such as language), it could well be that there are more species than just humans that have the proper predispositions for music to emerge, species that share with us one or more basic mechanisms that make up musicality. The mere fact that music did not emerge in some species is no evidence that the trait of musicality is absent. In that sense a ‘bottom-up perspective’ (cf. de Waal & Ferrari, 2010) that focuses on the constituent capacities underlying a larger cognitive trait, in our case musicality, is a feasible alternative strategy to follow.

So, instead of studying a complex cognitive trait (such as intelligence) in this approach one explores the basic processes that make up that trait. And in the case at hand: instead of asking which species are musical, the question becomes: how does musicality actually work? What are the necessary ingredients of musicality, and how did these evolve?

It's these questions that will be the focus of the Distinguished Lorentz Fellowship in the coming year at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies and the topic of an international workshop at the Lorentz Center. I'm looking forward to it!

*N.B. the oldest music-related artifact currently known is dated ca. 43,000 old, quite meaningless on an evolutionary scale of million of years.

Bolhuis, J., & Wynne, C. (2009). Can evolution explain how minds work? Nature, 458 (7240), 832-833 DOI: 10.1038/458832a

Honing, H., & Ploeger, A. (2012). Cognition and the Evolution of Music: Pitfalls and Prospects Topics in Cognitive Science, 4 (4), 513-524 DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01210.x

Lewontin, R.C. (1998). The evolution of cognition: Questions we will never answer. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), Methods, models, and conceptual issues: An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 4 (pp. 107-132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

de Waal, F., & Ferrari, P. (2010). Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (5), 201-207 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.003