# Impact of group vs. solo music education on cognitive development in disadvantaged children (7-12y)

Gaëlle Rouvier, Lorna Le Stanc, Indiana Wollman, Grégoire Borst

► To cite this version:

Gaëlle Rouvier, Lorna Le Stanc, Indiana Wollman, Grégoire Borst. Impact of group vs. solo music education on cognitive development in disadvantaged children (7-12y). Society of Research in Child Development, Mar 2023, Salt Lake City, United States. . hal-04057016

HAL Id: hal-04057016

https://hal.science/hal-04057016

Submitted on 3 Apr 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# IMPACT OF GROUP VS. SOLO MUSIC EDUCATION ON COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN (7-12y)

Gaelle ROUVIER¹,², Lorna LE STANC¹, Indiana WOLLMAN², Grégoire BORST¹

¹Laboratory for the Psychology of Child Development and Education (LaPsyDÉ, UMR CNRS 8240), Université Paris Cité, France

²Démos, Cité de la Musique – Philharmonie de Paris, France

## BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

* Actively **making music** entails enhanced cognitive activity and even cortical transformation (1)

* In children, it fosters enhanced **cognitive development of various cognitive abilities** such as IQ (2) or executive functions (3)

* It has a **privileged impact** on cognition over other leisure activities (4)

* Group music activities have a **positive impact on social cognition** (5)

* And group music programs seem to **positively counter-act** the developmental effects of a low **socioeconomic (SES) background** on cognitive development (of phonological awareness for instance, 6) – although the SES variable is never precisely controlled for.

* But a **comparison of cognitive effects** between modes of music training is lacking.

* Yet, given that to learn properly :

* ✓ Being actively engaged is critical (7)

* ✓ Social interaction is critical (8)

we wonder whether, controlling for the SES variable, all modes of music training (especially the contrasted solo vs. group ones) have the same cognitive impact :

* ➤ Is there an **impact of music** in general on the **cognitive development of children** (i.e. are the effects observed in solo training also present in group training and vice versa) ?

* ➤ Is there a **differentiated impact** according to the **group or solo form of music learning** ?

1. **Musical cognition** : music training (in solo and group) might have an immediate impact on musical skills (perception and production). This impact is probably different between modes of training.

2. **Executive functions** : the demanding activity in which music training (in solo and group) consists might entail transfer effects on executive functions. This impact is probably different between modes of training.

3. **Social cognition** : music training in group or solo might entail different transfer effects on social cognition skills.

## PARTICIPANTS

groups

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>no music</th><th>solos</th><th>group music</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>N</th><td>82</td><td>79</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><th>sex (female/male)</th><td>41F/41M</td><td>46F/33M</td><td>35F/22M</td></tr><tr><th>age (mean ± SD) ***</th><td>8.91 ± 1.11</td><td>8.02 ± 1.12</td><td>8.18 ± 1.29</td></tr><tr><th>SES (mean ± SD) **</th><td>-0.15 ± 0.98</td><td>0.32 ± 1</td><td>0.07 ± 0.92</td></tr><tr><th>IQ (mean ± SD)</th><td>7.03 ± 2.72</td><td>7.68 ± 2.87</td><td>7.62 ± 2.63</td></tr></tbody></table>

***: significant difference in age between no music and group music and between no music and solo music

**: significant difference in SES between solo music and group music

1

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>c-Rhythm & Synchronisation Task</figcaption></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>c-Auditory Attention</figcaption></figure>

## RESULTS

3

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Explicit Measures of Intergroup Biases</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## DISCUSSION

* Between T0 and T1, there is a significant increase in rhythmic motor synchrony (1), in selective auditory attention (2) and in the propensity to favour members of one's outgroup vs. one's ingroup (3). These improvements are the same between all three groups (there is no interaction between timepoint and group).

* Thereby, we cannot assess any effect of music on these capacities after only 6 months of intervention.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

As shown in the literature (3, 12), **effects of music intervention might appear after 1 year of training**. We expect an interaction between group and timepoint at the third measurement timepoint.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

## TWO TEAMS

* Quasi minimal group paradigm (9)

* Participants are allocated to one of the two teams to induce a sense of group belonging.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

## FOCUS ON SOME TASKS

1. **children Rhythm & Synchronisation Task (adapted from 10)**

INSTRUCTIONS

‘Listen and then tap in synchrony with the rhythm heard’

PRINCIPLE

N trials = 18

Structure of a stimulus

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

✓ C-RST score, a composite score of :

1) The ability to tap as many times as the rhythm heard

2) The ability to replicate the rhythmical pattern heard

2. **children Auditory Attention Task (adapted from 11)**

INSTRUCTIONS

‘Tap each time you hear the target sound (low long tone)’

PRINCIPLE

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

✓ d-prime

3. **Explicit Measures of Intergroup Biases (adapted from 9)**

INSTRUCTIONS

‘Who do you prefer

- To play with

- To share your 2 euros with ?’

PRINCIPLE

N trials = 10

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

✓ Preference (% in favour of the ingroup)

✓ Sharing & Collaboration (% in favour of the ingroup)

* children Rhythm & Synchronisation Task
  Mixed models to compensate for missing values

* DV : composite score

* IV : group, timepoint

* Covariates : SES, age

* children Auditory Attention Task
  Mixed models to compensate for missing values

* DV : d-prime

* IV : group, timepoint

* Covariates : SES, age

* Explicit Measures of Intergroup Biases
  Mixed models to compensate for missing values

* DV : preference; sharing & collaboration

* IV : group, timepoint

* Covariates : SES, age

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>