Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. Bates, D. , Maechler, M. , Bolker, B. , and Walker, S. (2013). “ lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4,” R package version 1.
2. Besson, M. , Chobert, J. , and Marie, C. (2011). “ Transfer of training between music and speech: Common processing, attention, and memory,” Front. Psychol. 2, 94.
3. Boebinger, D. , Evans, S. , Rosen, S. , Lima, C. F. , Manly, T. , and Scott, S. K. (2015). “ Musicians and non-musicians are equally adept at perceiving masked speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 378387.
4. Carey, D. , Rosen, S. , Krishnan, S. , Pearce, M. T. , Shepherd, A. , Aydelott, J. , and Dick, F. (2015). “ Generality and specificity in the effects of musical expertise on perception and cognition,” Cognition 137, 81105.
5. Darwin, C. J. , Brungart, D. S. , and Simpson, B. D. (2003). “ Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 29132922.
6. Fuller, C. D. , Galvin, J. J. , III, Free, R. H. , and Başkent, D. (2014a). “ Musician effect in cochlear implant simulated gender categorization,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, EL159EL165.
7. Fuller, C. D. , Galvin, J. J. , III, Maat, B. , Free, R. H. , and Başkent, D. (2014b). “ The musician effect: Does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations?,” Front. Neurosci. 8, 179.
8. Gaudrain, E. , and Carlyon, R. P. (2013). “ Using Zebra-speech to study sequential and simultaneous speech segregation in a cochlear-implant simulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 502518.
9. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). “ Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models,” J. Mem. Lang. 59, 434446.
10. Kawahara, H. , Masuda-Katsuse, I. , and de Cheveigné, A. (1999). “ Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time-frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based F0 extraction: Possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds,” Speech Commun. 27, 187207.
11. Micheyl, C. , Delhommeau, K. , Perrot, X. , and Oxenham, A. J. (2006). “ Influence of musical and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination,” Hear. Res. 219, 3647.
12. Miendlarzewska, E. A. , and Trost, W. J. (2014). “ How musical training affects cognitive development: Rhythm, reward and other modulating variables,” Front. Neurosci. 7, 279.
13. Parbery-Clark, A. , Skoe, E. , Lam, C. , and Kraus, N. (2009). “ Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise,” Ear Hear. 30, 653661.
14. Ruggles, D. R. , Freyman, R. L. , and Oxenham, A. J. (2014). “ Influence of musical training on understanding voiced and whispered speech in noise,” PLoS One 9, e86980.
15. Strait, D. L. , Kraus, N. , Parbery-Clark, A. , and Ashley, R. (2010). “ Musical experience shapes top-down auditory mechanisms: Evidence from masking and auditory attention performance,” Hear. Res. 261, 2229.
16. Swaminathan, J. , Mason, C. , Streeter, T. , Best, V. , Kidd, Jr., G. , and Patel, A. (2015). “ Musical training, individual differences and the cocktail party problem,” Sci. Rep. 5, 1162811628.
17. Versfeld, N. J. , Daalder, L. , Festen, J. M. , and Houtgast, T. (2000). “ Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 16711684.
18. Zekveld, A. A. , Rudner, M. , Johnsrude, I. S. , and Rönnberg, J. (2013). “ The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 22252234.
19. Zendel, B. R. , and Alain, C. (2013). “ The influence of lifelong musicianship on neurophysiological measures of concurrent sound segregation,” J. Cognit. Neurosci. 25, 503516.

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Evidence for transfer of musical training to better perception of speech in noise has been mixed. Unlike speech-in-noise, speech-on-speech perception utilizes many of the skills that musical training improves, such as better pitch perception and stream segregation, as well as use of higher-level auditory cognitive functions, such as attention. Indeed, despite the few non-musicians who performed as well as musicians, on a group level, there was a strong musician benefit for speech perception in a speech masker. This benefit does not seem to result from better voice processing and could instead be related to better stream segregation or enhanced cognitive functions.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd