Brain benefits of musical training may be all in our heads

For decades, parents, educators, and even scientists have shared the belief that learning a musical instrument sharpens the brain’s ability to process sound.

The idea has been simple and appealing – practice your scales, and you’ll not only make music but also tune your ears for clearer, faster hearing, even in noisy places. It’s a claim that has fueled school programs, music camps, and countless conversations about the benefits of music.

But a new large-scale study from the University of Michigan and other partner institutions has taken a closer look at this theory.

The results may surprise those who have long promoted the brain-boosting power of music lessons. The researchers found no evidence that musical training improves the brain’s earliest processing of sound.

No boost from musical training

The team used pre-registered methods, large sample sizes of more than 260 participants, and rigorous replications of past experiments. They tested two widely cited claims, including the idea that musicians can process speech in noisy backgrounds more effectively.

The researchers also tested whether musicians track pitch changes in speech more accurately. Neither claim held up under scrutiny, even after accounting for years of training or the age at which training began.

“Using sample sizes that were more than four times larger than the original studies, we found no relationship between musical training and sound processing at very early stages of the auditory system,” said Kelly Whiteford, the study’s lead author.

Musical training and the brain

Earlier research using the Frequency Following Response (FFR) – a brainwave measure of how faithfully the brain tracks sound frequencies – had reported stronger encoding in musicians.

The findings were influential, sparking widespread belief that early music lessons could boost listening skills in daily life.

In this new study, participants listened to speech sounds such as /da/ in multi-talker babble and a Mandarin word, /mi3/, with changing pitch. EEG recordings captured their brain responses.

Musicians showed no advantage in encoding either the fundamental frequency or the upper harmonics in noise, nor in tracking dynamic pitch in quiet.

Age did affect results: spectral encoding and pitch tracking worsened with age, consistent with previous research. However, musical training did not slow this decline.

Objective skill vs. neural encoding

The researchers also examined whether a musician’s actual skill, measured through a melody discrimination test, related to better neural encoding.

Musicians did outperform non-musicians in melody discrimination, and this skill correlated with years of training. But it still showed no relationship to neural encoding strength in the FFR tests.

“These results highlight the importance of carrying out rigorous large-scale studies to test even the most attractive theories,” said senior author Andrew Oxenham.

Past studies found an advantage

The authors note that previous positive results often came from small samples, varying definitions of “musician,” and methodological differences, all of which could inflate effect sizes.

Inconsistencies in how “advantage” was measured – even when the same stimuli were used – make comparisons difficult.

They also emphasize that, while no early brain encoding benefit was found, music may still enhance later, cortical stages of processing. It also offers well-established emotional, social, and cultural benefits.

“Musicians tend to have better music perception, and we also found that in our study,” Whiteford said. “Any reliable differences in how we perceive sound must be reflected somewhere in the brain. Where is that happening? Not in the FFR.”

Future musical training studies

The researchers emphasize the need for future large-scale, long-term studies that follow participants over time. These studies randomly assigned individuals to structured musical training or a non-music, active control activity.

This approach could separate training effects from pre-existing traits like natural auditory skills or personal interests. These traits might influence both the decision to become a musician and the ability to process sound.

Such research could answer a key question: are the perceptual differences seen in some musicians a direct result of their training, or do people with certain innate abilities simply gravitate toward music?

Until these questions are addressed, the authors suggest approaching the idea of music as a brain-enhancing tool with caution.

While music remains deeply valuable for cultural, emotional, and social reasons, the current findings show that its influence on the brain’s earliest sound processing is less certain than many once believed. It should be assessed using rigorous, evidence-based methods.

The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–