Cognitive Effects of Music and Dance Training in Children

May 17, 2017 updated by: Melody Wiseheart, York University

Cognitive Effects of Music and Dance Training in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The study used a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of two interventions (dance and musical training) for typically developing children. Interventions were run for three weeks in local community locations. Participants were tested before and after the intervention on a battery of cognitive and behavioural measures. They were compared across groups, and to a control group who do not receive the intervention.

The purpose of the current study was to assess the influence of dance and musical training on cognitive development. Research has indicated that musical training is associated with improve cognitive functioning, although the direction of such an association is unclear. Further, it is uncertain whether any benefits are specific to musical training or can also be demonstrated with other training activities. The current study used a randomized controlled trial to assess the causal effects of dance and musical training.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Participants Monolingual children aged between six and nine years old were recruited from two local communities in Ontario, Canada. Children with developmental delays, learning disabilities, or previous arts training were excluded from the study.

Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups

  1. Dance intervention group
  2. Music intervention group

To establish baseline performance levels and have a comparison, a passive control group was collected from the same towns using the same exclusion criteria.

Data analysis Difference scores were calculated for each measure by subtracting each participant's second testing session data from the first. When appropriate, iterative trimming with a 3 SD cutoff was used, by subject and by condition, to remove outliers. Results for each measure were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs (analysis of variance) for the between-subjects factor of training group (music, dance, or control).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

75

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

6 years to 9 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Monolingual

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Developmental delays or learning disabilities
  • Previous arts training (in dance, drama, or music)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Basic Science
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Triple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Music Training
Training curriculums were developed using guidelines set by the Ontario Ministry of Education (The Ontario Curriculum, 2009) for teaching music to grades 1 to 3. Music was delineated into duration, pitch, dynamics and other expressive controls, timbre, texture/harmony, and form. training included direct instruction and group activities. All training programs had the same structure: a warm-up period, following by instruction from a teacher, and then group activities to practically demonstrate the concepts learned. Both programs involved working towards a variety of ensembles.
Active Comparator: Dance Training
As with music training, dance was operationally defined by fundamental concepts for the art form, namely elements for body, space, time, energy, and relationship. The intervention involved both individual and group activities, with a combination of instruction and practical activities, and preparation for a final performance.
No Intervention: Passive control group

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in visuospatial working memory
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Self-ordered pointing task (Cragg & Nation, 2007)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in interference control on flanker
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Flanker task (Bunge, Dudukovic, Thomason, Vaidya, & Gabriela, 2002)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in color-shape task switching
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
color-shape task (Wiseheart, Viswanathan, & Bialystok, 2015)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in verbal working memory
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Digit span (Weschler, 2008)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in interference control on Stroop
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Stroop task (Cepeda, Blackwell, & Munakata, 2013)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in quantity-identity task switching
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
quantity-identity task (Cepeda, Cepeda, & Kramer, 2000)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in processing speed using box completion
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Box completion (Salthouse, 1993)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in Non-verbal intelligence
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in Receptive vocabulary
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IV; Dunn, Dunn, & Lenhard, 2015)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in processing speed using digit symbol
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Digit symbol (Weschler, 1991)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Change in processing speed using symbol copy
Time Frame: Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)
Symbol copy (Weschler, 1991)
Before and after intervention (3 weeks gap)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 1, 2012

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 30, 2013

Study Completion (Actual)

November 30, 2013

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 6, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 17, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

May 19, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 19, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 17, 2017

Last Verified

May 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • YorkU-MD1

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Undecided

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cognitive Change

Clinical Trials on Music Training

Search Similar Trials