Modularity of music processing

By Isabelle Peretz, Max Coltheart. Nature Neuroscience, 2003

807 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/428f830b78a3cbe1dd17c6d72dbb2935be53c1bc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

When the brain plays music: auditory–motor interactions in music perception and production (2007, background): “Neuropsychological studies indicate that these dimensions may be separable in the brain: patients with brain injury may be impaired in the processing of melody but not rhythm, or vice vers”
Singing and vocal development (2006, background): “Furthermore, recent neuropsychobiological data on pitch processing modules in the brain (Peretz & Coltheart, 2003) supports a hierarchical model in which melodic contour (pace Davidson, 1994; Rutkowski, 1997; Welch, 1998) is analysed before the processing of intervals and tonality (see Welch, 2005…”
Music and Language: A Developmental Comparison (2004, background): “Peretz and Coltheart (2003) present evidence from neurologically impaired adults to support such a division, suggesting that the neural faculties subserving music are quite distinct from other processes in the brain.”
Expression, Perception, and Induction of Musical Emotions: A Review and a Questionnaire Study of Everyday Listening (2004, background): “Yet the actual information-processing may be handled by a specialized neural “module” for perception of emotions, as suggested by Juslin and Laukka (2003) and Peretz and Coltheart (2003).”
Universals in the world’s musics (2013, background): “Similar questions have been raised in cognitive discussions about potential domain specificity for music (Peretz & Morais, 1993; Peretz & Coltheart, 2003; Justus & Hutsler, 2005; Patel, 2008).”
Brain organization for music processing. (2005, background): “As recently reviewed in Peretz & Coltheart (2003), patients may suffer from recognition failures that affect the musical domain exclusively.”
Absolute Pitch, Speech, and Tone Language: Some Experiments and a Proposed Framework (2004, background): “Finally, the present work has implications for the issues of modularity in the processing of speech and music (McMullen & Saffran, 2004; Patel, 2003; Peretz & Coltheart, 2003; Peretz, Gagnon, Hebert, & Macoir, 2004) and of the evolutionary origins of these two forms of communication (Wallin, Merke”
Language, music, syntax and the brain (2003, background): “What is the cognitive and neural relationship of language and music? Are they largely separate, 'modular' brain systems that operate in fundamentally different ways (see accompanying review by Peretz & Colthear”
Real-time feedback in the singing studio: an innovatory action-research project using new voice technology (2005, background): “This comparison is likely to depend on the relative developments within and between their ‘musical’ and ‘phonological’ lexicons (cf. Peretz & Coltheart, 2003) as conscious judgments, in the sense of being able to articulate the self-judgment, require the use of language.”
Music lessons, pitch processing, and g (2010, background): “Comparisons of musically trained and untrained participants represent natural experiments that have ramifications for issues central to cognitive science, including plasticity (Trainor, 2005), modularity ( Peretz & Coltheart, 2003 ), talent (Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998), and transfer (Schellenbe”
A Model of Melodic Expectation (2005, background): “One interpretation of Peretz and Coltheart (2003) suggests that tonal encoding might operate modularly, relying on principles of tonal organization learned implicitly and automatically in reaction to early exposure.”