Abstract
Introduction:
Scientific research has demonstrated that musical training and bilingualism contribute to enhanced executive functions (D’Souza et al., 2018). However, it is unknown whether fluency in three or more languages would confer additional cognitive benefits above bilingual and musician status. According to Patel’s OPERA Hypothesis, music shares many similar components of language and also contains a high level of task complexity and temporal elements (Patel, 2012). Previous studies suggest that music and language learning enhance executive functions in cognitive control mechanisms, improving the ability to inhibit irrelevant information, flexibly shift attention, and make quick decisions. This research sought to examine associations between bilingualism and language fluency in musicians as compared to multilingual non-musicians. Also, do adults who are fluent in three languages perform similarly to bilingual musicians? Our research assessed associations between multilingualism, cognitive performance, and musical training.
Methods:
Fifty-five participants (19 bilingual musicians, 18 bilingual non-musicians, 18 multilingual non-musicians) completed measures of visual motor processing and cognitive control in the visual and auditory domains.
Results:
Results of a two-way ANOVA revealed enhanced processing speed and cognitive control in visual and auditory domains for bilingual musicians as compared to bilingual and multilingual non-musicians.
Discussion:
Overall, multilingualism may not enhance executive functions beyond those acquired in music training.
Introduction
Music training and language learning are complex tasks associated with generalized benefits in executive functions for children and adults (; Tao et al., 2021). Formal music training is associated with learning to perform on a musical instrument, and bilingualism refers to learning how to speak and write fluently in a second language. There is evidence to suggest participation in complex activities such as language learning and music training individually benefit executive functions such as verbal fluency (; ; ), processing speed (; ; ) and cognitive control (; ; ). Based upon the effects of multilingualism and music training singularly on executive functions, we sought to examine whether bilingual musicians would demonstrate an additive effect on cognitive control and processing speed. While few researchers examine a potential additive effect of music training and language fluency (; ), knowledge of potential benefits could increase the scope of cognitive interventions, especially for individuals with speech and language processing disorders (; ; Vik et al., 2018).
Cognitive control and processing speed
Cognitive control, a primary component of executive functions in adults, refers to the regulation of one’s attention, behavior, thoughts, and emotions to resist internal impulses or external distractions, allowing for goal-directed responses (; ). Music training has consistently been associated with improvements in cognitive control, with musicians demonstrating enhanced ability to suppress irrelevant information (). However, research indicates that the relationship between language fluency and cognitive control in adult bilinguals is complex and varies across studies. While research by found enhanced performance by bilinguals on the Stroop task, the N-back task, and the switching task when compared to multilinguals, other studies found little evidence for a specific bilingual advantage, highlighting variability across studies (; ).
Similar to results reported regarding cognitive control, research examining the role of bilingualism on information processing speed has frequently produced inconsistent findings (). For instance, research by found bilingual participants completed tasks significantly faster across all conditions while maintaining accuracy, suggesting a potential advantage in processing speed. In contrast, research by found no significant difference between bilinguals and monolinguals using the Pattern Comparison test. To-date, few studies examine differences between bilinguals and multilinguals, and none include music training. Research in our lab has shown that adult musicians demonstrate enhanced information processing speed when compared to non-musicians (). Thus, we hypothesized that musical experience may confer an added benefit to the potential bilingual advantage.
Music-language neural overlap
Music and language domains involve overlapping cognitive processes (e.g., perception, prediction, feedback, and correction). These processes engage neural areas that occasionally draw upon parallel neurocognitive resources (). The OPERA hypothesis posits that under specific conditions – overlap, precision, emotion, repetition, and attention – music training can enhance auditory processing (, ). When all these conditions align, neural changes are anticipated to lead to heightened sensory perception of acoustic features and improved cognitive performance in auditory selective attention. This enhancement is attributed to the shared cortical processing networks for language and music (; ), evident in the auditory cortex () and superior temporal gyrus (). Additionally, cross-domain overlap extends to syntactic processing, as proposed by the shared syntactic integration resource hypothesis (). Recent studies have unveiled this overlap in the processing of music and language, not only within the syntactic systems but also extending into the semantic domain (; Slevc et al., 2009; ; ; Steinbeis and Koelsch, 2008). These findings underscore the intricate relationship between music and language processing, highlighting shared neural substrates across different cognitive domains.
Overlapping qualities led us to compare the potential advantages from multilingualism and music training. Despite similarities in the benefits of music training and language learning, music training confers additional advantages not found in bilingualism. Studies of musicians demonstrated improvements in working memory, processing speed, and cognitive control (; ). A longitudinal association study that measured cognitive performance over multiple time points during a 2-years span revealed positive effects of music training on visuo-spatial and verbal working memory, processing speed, reasoning ability, and associations with music practice and math performance (). In another study comparing musicians and non-musicians, found larger gray matter volume for musicians, particularly in late middle-aged to older adults, with professional musicians outperforming non-musicians on cognitive control tasks. Additionally, found that professional adult musicians exhibited superior performance in working memory and attention tasks when compared to adult non-musicians.
Music training was shown to benefit auditory working memory among primary school children, particularly through a more extended instrumental training program (). Furthermore, research suggests the potential for improved attention skills, verbal intelligence, and enhanced cognitive control performance in short-term music training interventions (; ; ). For instance, a 14-weeks private piano tutoring program for 7–12-years-old children resulted in improved attention skills and enhanced reading time (). Similarly, studies comparing preschool children receiving short-term music training to those receiving Lego training () and visual art training () demonstrated enhancements in cognitive control and verbal intelligence for children in the music training condition. Research suggests that music training increases many areas of executive functions that rely upon complex attention.
The positive links between higher cognitive performance in executive functions and music training extend across different age groups. Studies conducted with older adults who completed piano training, both in preliminary investigations (; ) and randomized controlled trials (), highlight the cognitive benefits that music training can confer in adulthood. These studies revealed improvements in visual scanning, inhibitory control, and divided attention tasks within the piano instruction groups compared to control groups. In addition, one study examining sustainability found benefits to visual scanning and processing speed were maintained after training ceased, underscoring the enduring impact of music training on cognition ().
While music training supports executive functioning, emerging research explores the shared and distinct cognitive and neurophysiological mechanisms between music and language processing. Comparative analyses suggest that both domains recruit overlapping neural systems, particularly in semantic and syntactical processing (; Yu et al., 2017). For example, target words accompanied by musical chords in a self-paced reading task contributed to larger syntactic violations in musicians compared to non-musicians as indexed by N400 amplitude ().
Further evidence for this shared processing comes from electrophysiological studies examining components like the Early Right Anterior Negativity (ERAN) and the N5. The ERAN, peaking around 250 ms, is elicited by violations of musical syntax and has been localized to inferior frontolateral cortical regions (; ). The N5, emerging between 500 and 550 ms, is thought to reflect harmonic integration and exhibits a frontal scalp distribution similar to the linguistic N400 (). Steinbeis and Koelsch (2008) reported that the ERAN was attenuated when music was presented concurrently with syntactic–but not semantic–language manipulations, reinforcing its role in syntax processing. However, they also found that the N5 was modulated by the semantic cloze probability of target words, suggesting that this component may reflect meaning-based integration across both domains. While some researchers argue that differences in the scalp distribution and timing of these components point to domain-specificity, the overall evidence supports at least partial overlap in the neural resources recruited by music and language.
Although music and language may utilize domain-specific resources, they also engage shared cognitive processes in complex meaning-making contexts. Supporting this interpretation, semantic priming paradigms have demonstrated that musical passages–such as excerpts from Mozart–can prime semantically related linguistic targets, much like traditional language-based priming (; ).
Bilingualism and musicianship
Bilingualism emerges as a potent factor in mitigating age-related cognitive decline, as evidenced by findings from a large-scale Lothian birth cohort study (). Even after controlling for variables such as childhood intelligence, gender, and socioeconomic status, bilingualism had a protective effect, resulting in significant enhancements in reading, verbal fluency, and general intelligence when compared to monolinguals. Many studies underscore the cognitive benefits derived from language fluency (; ; ), thus drawing parallels to the advantages seen through music instruction, but less attention has been allocated to those fluent in multiple languages.
Functional imaging studies involving bilinguals, musicians, and monolingual non-musicians showed enhanced activation in anterior-posterior attention network while completing a non-spatial working memory task (e.g., N-Back) for all groups; however, heightened activity in known language-related areas was observed for bilinguals in the left supramarginal gyrus and left DLPFC (). Findings suggest cognitive advantages for both bilinguals and musicians may be influenced by distinct neural networks reinforced through domain-specific training. For instance, examined task-switching, a crucial component of cognitive control and dual-task performance in monolingual musicians, bilingual musicians, bilingual non-musicians, and monolingual non-musicians. While musicians demonstrated heightened task-switching efficiency, no cognitive advantage was associated with language fluency. Bilingual and monolingual musicians exhibited similar performances across tasks. The literature presents a spectrum of findings: (1) musicians and bilinguals demonstrate comparable cognitive performance benefits in executive functions (; ), (2) research assessing young adults using a Simon measure reveals enhanced cognitive control in musicians, bilinguals, and bilingual musicians compared to participants lacking music or language fluency (), and (3) studies investigating these associations report no bilingual advantage; however, a musician advantage is identified in working memory (). Collectively, data suggests bilingualism is associated with enhanced executive functions; however, little is known about cognitive processing in multilinguals and the relationship between fluency and music training.
Multilinguals
Studies of multilinguals suggest positive effects beyond those of bilinguals that may protect cognitive function (; ). found associations between multilingualism and reduced cognitive impairment in older adults. Another examined cognitive control with a three language Stroop paradigm, found faster reaction times for congruent versus incongruent items for multilinguals. However, faster reaction times and increased accuracy were only found in the within-language condition, not between language conditions, suggesting processing costs when language presentation changed. However, other research in multilinguals offered contrasting results illustrating that linguistic distance between L2 and L3 can affect cognitive control related to either early-stage cognitive benefits obtained when learning a closely related L3 or reduce cognitive control performance due to higher levels of effort allocation necessary to learn a distant language (). However, found enhanced performance for multilinguals on tasks that included response inhibition and interference suppression. Nevertheless, the role of multilingualism on cognition is not yet fully understood.
The primary objective of this research was to examine the associations between language fluency and music training. We aimed to determine whether there is an additive benefit to cognitive control and processing speed in a population of bilingual and multilingual adults. Research indicating differences between musicians and bilinguals does not merge these groups, nor consider music training as a language (). This research is among the first to compare music training and language fluency in a three-group design: bilingual musicians, bilingual non-musicians, and non-musician multilinguals. Guided by the hypothesis that increased auditory experiences, or musical training might enhance executive functions in cognitive control, our investigation examines the relationship between linguistic proficiency, musical expertise, and cognitive processes.
Materials and methods
Participants
We recruited three groups of adults (19 bilingual musicians, 18 bilingual non-musicians, and 18 multilingual non-musicians) from a large urban university in the Southeastern United States. Screening criteria for all groups included right-handedness, those who reported no hearing or vision deficits, and those fluent in English as well as one additional language. Bilingual musicians (BMus) consisted of those who spoke two languages fluently, and who reported practicing a musical instrument for a minimum of 5 h per week and have played an instrument for a minimum of 5 years. Bilingual non-musicians (BNM) included those who spoke two languages fluently and reported having three or fewer years of formal musical experience and not currently engaged in music reading or performance. Criteria for multilinguals (MultiMus) included those who spoke three or more languages fluently and reported having less than 3 years of formal musical experience. Formal music experience was defined as private or group music lessons. Informed written consent was obtained in accordance with the policies of the University of South Florida Insitutional Review Board. Participants received financial compensation for their time in testing sessions.
The required sample size was calculated using G* Power 3.1 with a one-way ANOVA with a medium effect size (f = 0.25), an alpha level of 0.05, and a power of 0.80 (). Fifty-five participants (BMus = 19, BNM = 18, MultiMus = 18) completed the study. Musicians recruited for this study had an average onset of music training of 9.22 years (SD = 2.66). Average age of onset for learning L2 for BMus (M = 6.63, SD = 4.12), BNM (M = 5.58, SD = 4.42), and MultiMus (M = 8.68, SD = 2.54).
Results of an ANOVA on demographic characteristics (see Table 1) showed no significant differences between groups in estimated IQ (WASI scores), gender, language proficiency, years of education, and language understanding (LEAP scores).
TABLE 1
| Demographic factors | Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BNM (N = 19) | BMus (N = 18) | MULTI (N = 19) | |
| Age | 20.95 (2.17) | 22.11 (5.23) | 21.68 (3.33) |
| Gender | 9/10 | 9/9 | 8/11 |
| Years of education | 14.74 (1.59) | 15.33 (2.77) | 15.21 (1.48) |
| Age learned L2 | 5.58 (4.42) | 6.63 (4.12) | 8.68 (2.54) |
| Years of music training* | 1.18 (1.18) | 16.92 (8.30) | 0.79 (1.02) |
| PRI | 99.89 (11.28) | 97.28 (11.52) | 98.58 (13.87) |
| AMMA* | 52.58 (6.54) | 58.78 (7.21) | 54.16 (8.02) |
| LEAP-Q | 8.84 (0.69) | 8.78 (1.26) | 8.84 (0.96) |
Mean (±SD) demographic data.
PRI, Perceptual Reasoning Index; AMMA, Advanced Measures of Music Audiation; LEAP-Q, Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire.
*Indicates statistical differences between the groups (p < 0.05).
Procedure
All participants completed 1–2.5-h testing session in a quiet testing environment. Participants completed the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q; ) to ensure language fluency. The LEAP-Q measure is commonly used in language studies and consists of nine demographic questions and seven language questions to evaluate language proficiency (). For this study, we chose to use Item 3 in the language portion of the questionnaire to determine fluency status. Participant language fluency was also verified with a short performance task in which participants translated a paragraph into the second and/or third language ().
Measures
The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence II (WASI- II; ) was administered as an estimate of intelligence using two reliable non-verbal performance subtests, Matrix Reasoning and Block Design (r = 0.87–0.92). Raw scores were converted to age-adjusted scaled scores for the two-subtest version of the WASI. T-scores were derived for each independent measure and summed to form a composite. Composite scores were used to derive an estimate of intelligence standard score to characterize the sample (Wechsler, 1999). Since intelligence cannot be estimated accurately with verbal tasks in English for multilinguals due to differences in vocabulary, the two non-verbal subtests of the WASI were used to estimate intelligence (). WAIS-IV Digit Coding and Symbol Search subtests were administered to compute (i.e., summation of scores) a Processing Speed Index (PSI) as these measures are commonly used in healthy and clinical populations (Wisdom et al., 2012; ). The Digit Coding subtest includes a series of symbols to accompany numeric stimuli in which participants ascribe the appropriate symbols for numeric stimuli over 2 min. Performance on the Digit Coding subtest requires processing speed, working memory, visuospatial processing, and attention. The Symbol Search subtest includes two columns of symbols in which participants are asked to determine whether the symbol in one column matches any of those symbols presented in the other column. Participants are instructed to mark whether each symbol was replicated with a total of 2 s to complete the task. The Symbols Search subtest requires processing speed, visual scanning, and visuospatial processing (Wisdom et al., 2012).
To evaluate cognitive control in the verbal and musical domains, the Cued Color Word Stroop (CCWS; ) and the Musical Stroop Task (MST; ) were administered. The computerized Cued Color Word Stroop consisted of 144 trials in four blocks of 36 pseudorandomized stimuli presented in the following block order: mixed, word, mixed, color. The measure was administered with E-Prime 3.0 on a MacBook Pro with Bootcamp. As in the standard Stroop task, participants are instructed to attend to either the ink color or the name of the word depending upon the instructions of the cue. Stimuli were presented in green, red, and blue. The cue was presented for 750 ms, followed by a 1,000-ms delay, and the stimulus was presented for up to 2500 ms or a response was made via a button box. Total errors and mean reaction times were collected over the four blocks. Items with no response were allotted the maximum response time. The Cued Color Word Stroop was reported to have test-retest reliabilities of 0.86, 0.82, and 0.73 for the individual task ().
The computerized Musical Stroop Task () included 240 trials with four blocks of pseudorandomized stimuli presented in the following order of blocks: Text, Mixed, Tune, and Mixed trials. Each trial included the first phrase of, “Mary Had a Little Lamb” or “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” presented with the last word or last two pitches congruent or modified. For instance, in the standard, “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,” the melody descends by one whole step at the end of the phrase. However, in the incongruent condition, the melody remained the same. Similarly, in the melody, “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” the last two notes at the end of the first phrase remain the same in the congruent condition. However, in the incongruent condition, notes descended by a whole step. Participants were instructed to respond to either the last word of the stimulus in the Text condition or the direction of the last two pitches (same or down) in the Tune condition. In the mixed blocks, participants were provided a visual cue of text or tune and asked to respond accordingly. Each trial consisted of a fixation of 1000 ms (a cross placed in the center of the screen), a 750-ms cue, a 1000-ms delay, and a 2000-ms sound file followed by a 2000-ms response duration. The Musical Stroop Task was chosen for its reliability in adults (r = 0.80; ). Total errors and mean response times were calculated for each block (Text, Tune, or Mixed). Items with no response were allocated the maximum response time.
Statistical analysis
A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted for each Stroop measure (CCWS, MST) to examine (Block: Mix, Color Word; Mix, Text, Tune X Group: BNM, BM, MULTI) differences between reaction times and error rates. A separate one-way ANOVA with group as a fixed factor was conducted on PSI scores. For each analysis, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were conducted to explore differences among three groups. Effect sizes for main effects and interaction effects are reported using partial η2.
Results
We conducted two separate two-way ANOVAs as measures of cognitive control differed by modality (music and visual) (Table 2). Results of a two-way ANOVA on cognitive control in the auditory domain (MST) showed a significant main effect of Block for error rates, F(2, 51) = 215.16, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.81, and reaction times, F(2, 51) = 10.28, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.16. Our data showed a significant Group X Block interaction for error rates, F(4, 51) = 24.18, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.48, and for reaction times, F(4, 51) = 2.77, p = 0.031, partial η2 = 0.09. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni method showed significantly reduced errors and shorter reaction times for bilingual musicians compared to bilingual non-musicians and multilinguals.
TABLE 2
| Measures | Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BNM (N = 19) | BMus (N = 18) | MULTI (N = 19) | |
| CCWS errors | 7.37 (4.810) | 6.50 (4.878) | 7.67 (6.765) |
| CCWS reaction time (ms)* | 806.96 (103.499) | 840.67 (159.150) | 995.560 (196.796) |
| MST errors* | 59.11 (20.870) | 15.17 (13.021) | 71.28 (34.776) |
| MST reaction time (ms)* | 2013.807 (120.508) | 1879.675 (78.878) | 1871.894 (205.375) |
| TMTA (sec)* | 25.40 (4.740) | 31.10 (6.797) | 31.76 (7.820) |
| TMTB (sec)* | 58.10 (14.589) | 58.61 (13.178) | 62.22 (18.797) |
| WAIS-IV coding* | 88.42 (11.744) | 90.06 (11.507) | 79.00 (13.412) |
| WAIS-IV symbol search | 43.42 (7.066) | 43.33 (6.183) | 38.68 (6.807) |
Mean (±SD) data.
WAIS-IV, Weschler Adult intelligence Scale-IV; CCWS, Cue Colored Word Stroop; TMT, Trail Making Test; MST, Musical Stroop Task.
*Indicates statistical differences between the groups (p < 0.05).
We repeated this analyses for the CCWS (Figure 1) in the visual domain. Results of a two-way ANOVA on error rates and reaction times for the CCWS showed a significant main effect of Block for errors, F(2, 52) = 73.90, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.58, and for reaction times, F(2, 52) = 68.14, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.56. We did not see a significant Group X Block interaction for either error rates, F(4, 52) = 0.26, p = 0.90, nor reaction times, F(4, 52) = 1.64, p = 0.18. The pattern of results suggests similar performance regardless of language fluency or musical experience.
FIGURE 1
Data were contrasting when analyzing blocks on the MST (Figure 2). For the MST, we found differences in errors made on the Mixed blocks, F(2, 52) = 29.64, p = 0.0001, and Tune blocks, F(2,52) = 32.48, p = 0.0001. Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction showed bilingual musicians performed less errors on Tune and Mixed blocks (p = 0.0001) compared to bilingual non-musicians and multilinguals. For MST reaction times, significant differences were found on the Tune, F(2,52) = 5.08, p = 0.010, partial η2 = 0.164, and Mixed Conditions, F(2,52) = 6.69, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.205 but not for the Text Condition F(2,52) = 1.69, p = 0.19 (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2
Results of an ANOVA on processing speed (Processing Speed Index) with group as a fixed factor revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in processing speed, F(2, 53) = 4.50, p = 0.016, partial η2 = 0.15. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni method revealed bilingual musicians had higher PSI indices compared to multilinguals or bilingual non-musicians.
Overall, results suggest slower processing speed and cognitive control by multilinguals compared to bilinguals. Similar performance was found between musicians and non-musicians in the visual domain; however, musicians demonstrated significantly enhanced performance in the auditory domain.
Discussion
We investigated the associations between musicians and language fluency (bilinguals and multilinguals) on cognitive control and processing speed in young adults. Results suggest that long-term music training may be associated with benefits in these executive functions. Data are consistent with experimental research that demonstrates a causal relationship between music training and cognitive control (; ). Although we hypothesized there would be cognitive benefits for multilinguals, results show no additive effect of multilingualism in these areas of executive functions. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that multilinguals do not necessarily perform better on cognitive control tasks than bilinguals (). A possible explanation for these findings is that language processing might include additional levels of complexity that may be associated with different regions of the auditory cortices ().
Although there is controversy in the literature regarding code switching (), studies show that it allows bilinguals to separate languages more effectively, thus improving their executive functioning skills (). However, our results showed that these benefits did not extend to multilinguals, specifically regarding processing speed. This may be attributed to the increased complexity that is brought about by being fluent in three or more languages, especially when taking into consideration additional tasks measuring executive functioning (). This is consistent with recent findings in multilinguals when compared to bilinguals on measures of cognitive control and processing speed such as the NIH Toolbox, Flanker and Inhibitory Control Measure ().
Bilingual musicians made fewer errors than bilingual and multilingual non-musicians on the MST, which is consistent with previous studies that showed enhanced performance for musicians on auditory processing tasks (). The reaction times for the MST suggest that auditory processing may not be as enhanced in bilingual non-musicians compared to bilingual musicians (Figure 2). In the CCWS, bilingual non-musicians and bilingual musicians demonstrated significantly faster reaction times compared to multilinguals. Our results showed that multilingualism does not necessarily produce an additive effect on processing speed and cognitive control. In contrast, we found no significant group differences in CCWS errors, which is to be expected for cognitive control (). Our results are consistent with neurophysiological data suggesting that there are shared resources amongst language and music domains within the brain (), thus explaining the enhanced auditory processing in bilingual musicians.
Results suggest that music training may enhance processing speed and auditory processing. Our findings are consistent with previous research that music training may enhance information processing speed in both visual and auditory domains (; ; ) when compared to controls. Longitudinal research in music education and cognition showed that coordination developed during musical training relies heavily on rhythmic performance (; ). hypothesized that the refinement of rhythmic abilities in music education interventions may contribute to an overall boost in cognition.
Previous versions of a Musical Stroop Task required knowledge of note reading and solfege (Stewart, 2005; ). However, we chose to use the Musical Stroop Task for its accessibility for musicians and non-musicians. The reaction times for the MST suggest that auditory processing may not be as enhanced in bilingual non-musicians compared to bilingual musicians. Both bilingual groups (musicians and non-musicians) had reduced reaction times on CCWS when compared to the multilingual group. This may be due to a higher average age of onset for the third language in the multilingual non-musician group than the average age of onset for the second language in each group.
OPERA hypothesis denoted that music and speech share acoustic features. According to the OPERA hypothesis, if overlap, precision, emotion, repetition, and attention are met, higher overall speech processing may result due to an increase in adaptive plasticity in neural networks (). This aligns with our findings highlighting that language processing may be enhanced by music training. However, even though multilingualism has benefits as shown in other studies (; ; ), the present results show that multilingualism does not enhance executive functions beyond that of bilinguals.
Limitations
We found associations between language fluency and music training; however, there are a few limitations. While this study was not causal in nature, our results make a key contribution to understanding how music and language learning transfer to executive functions. Results highlight the role of music training and bilingualism on cognitive control, necessary for generalized cognitive performance and selective attention (Vibell et al., 2021). Additionally, improved task switching and dual-task performance has been associated with musical-training (). Our results support the OPERA Hypothesis, given that musical training enhances multitasking abilities ().
Our study is unique as we utilized a rigorous screening process, ensuring that all participants were fluent in the spoken languages (LEAP-Q). Based upon our enrollment criteria, we could not examine a group of multilingual musicians. Additional studies are needed to further explore the benefits associated with multilingualism in a true experimental design with multilingual musicians to better understand potential additive benefits of music training and language learning with additional groups of monolingual speakers.
Since tonal language speakers have higher music aptitude (), one limitation of this study included that five participants in this study spoke tonal languages and thus, it is unclear if this had any bearing on these results. Research suggests that even amongst Mandarin speakers, musicians demonstrated an enlarged electrical response to lexical tone changes and exhibited significantly faster discrimination performance than non-musicians, resulting in better lexical tone perception even in a tonal language ().
Since most of the musicians within the study began formal music instruction around age nine on various instruments, further research is necessary to isolate the role of early music training during the sensitive period (i.e., prior to age seven) as other studies associated cognitive benefits () and structural differences in the hippocampus, amygdala, and basal ganglia with early music training (Vaquero et al., 2016; ). Future studies should consider the age of onset and differentiate the type of instrumental training.
Conclusion
The present work examined associations between multilingualism, cognitive performance, and music training. It was found that bilingual musicians performed better on executive functions and processing speed in auditory and visual domains as compared to multilingual and bilingual non-musicians. Collectively, associational studies along with longitudinal studies suggest that musical training may prepare the mind for learning through enhanced executive functions (). Furthermore, results of the study indicated that although music training may help to enhance processing speed, multilingualism may not necessarily produce an additive effect on cognitive control and processing speed, consistent with previous results (; ). Although more research is necessary to explore the mechanisms behind these findings, our results ultimately clarify that fluency in three or more languages may not confer additional cognitive benefits above bilingual and musician status.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://osf.io/g8nkq/.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of South Florida Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JAB: Investigation, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Data curation. KL: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AZ: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation. JA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JBB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This project is supported in part by the National Endowment for the Arts Research Labs (Grant No. #1936486-38-24) to JAB.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA-Research Labs) grant for their support. We wish to acknowledge Hewitt Zewdie, Gisselle Palaca, and Melissa Chau for research assistance.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AlainC.KhatamianY.HeY.LeeY.MorenoS.LeungA. W.et al (2018). Different neural activities support auditory working memory in musicians and bilinguals.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1423435–446. 10.1111/nyas.13717
2
AmengualJ. L.RojoN.Veciana, De Las HerasM.Marco-PallarésJ.Grau-SánchezJ.et al (2013). Sensorimotor plasticity after music-supported therapy in chronic stroke patients revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation.PLoS One8:e61883. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061883
3
AmerT.KalenderB.HasherL.TrehubS. E.WongY. (2013). Do older professional musicians have cognitive advantages?PLoS One8:e71630. 10.1371/journal.pone.0071630
4
AssaneoM. F.Lizcano-CortésF.RipollesP. (2024). Keeping time: How musical training may boost cognition.PLoS Biol.22:e3002810. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002810
5
AthertonR. P.ChrobakQ. M.RauscherF. H.KarstA. T.HansonM. D.SteinertS. W.et al (2018). Shared processing of language and music.Exp. Psychol.6540–48. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000388
6
BaileyJ. A.PenhuneV. (2013). The relationship between the age of onset of musical training and rhythm synchronization performance: Validation of sensitive period effects.Front. Neurosci.7:227. 10.3389/fnins.2013.00227
7
BakT. H.NissanJ. J.AllerhandM. M.DearyI. J. (2014). Does bilingualism influence cognitive aging?Ann. Neurol.75959–963. 10.1002/ana.24158
8
BayanovaL.ChichininaE.AslanovaM. (2024). The association between music training and executive function in 6–7-year-old children.Front. Educ.9:1333580. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1333580
9
BialystokE. (2010). Global–local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond cognitive control.Dev. Psychol.4693–105. 10.1037/a0015466
10
BialystokE.PoarchG. (2014). Language experience changes language and cognitive ability.Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft ZfE17433–446. 10.1007/s11618-014-0491-8
11
BidelmanG. M.HutkaS.MorenoS. (2013). Tone language speakers and musicians share enhanced perceptual and cognitive abilities for musical pitch: Evidence for bidirectionality between the domains of language and music.PLoS One8:e60676. 10.1371/journal.pone.0060676
12
BugosJ. (2019). The effects of bimanual coordination in music interventions on executive functions in aging adults.Front. Integr. Neurosci.13:68. 10.3389/fnint.2019.00068
13
BugosJ. A. (2010). The benefits of music instruction on processing speed, verbal fluency, and cognitive control in aging.Music Educ. Res. Int.101–9.
14
BugosJ. A.DeMarieD. (2017). The effects of a short-term music program on preschool children’s executive functions.Psychol. Music45855–867. 10.1177/0305735617692666
15
BugosJ. A.WangY. (2022). Piano training enhances executive functions and psychosocial outcomes in aging: Results of a randomized controlled trial.J. Gerontol. Ser. B771625–1636. 10.1093/geronb/gbac021
16
BugosJ. A.PerlsteinW. M.McCraeC. S.BrophyT. S.BedenbaughP. H. (2007). Individualized Piano instruction enhances executive functioning and working memory in older adults.Aging Mental Health11464–471. 10.1080/13607860601086504
17
BugosJ.MostafaW. (2011). Musical training enhances information processing speed.Bull. Council Res. Music Educ.1877–18. 10.2307/41162320
18
ChenJ.JiangC.LiuF. (2025). Do trilingual individuals exhibit an advantage over bilinguals in executive function tasks?Acta Psychol.259105354–110563. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105354
19
Chung-Fat-YimA.HayakawaS.MarianV. (2025). Language experience influences performance on the NIH toolbox cognition battery: A cluster analysis.Human. Soc. Sci. Commun.121–14. 10.1057/s41599-025-04360-7
20
CriscuoloA.BonettiL.SärkämöT.KliuchkoM.BratticoE. (2019). On the association between musical training, intelligence and executive functions in adulthood.Front. Psychol.10:1704. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01704
21
D’SouzaA. A.MoradzadehL.WiseheartM. (2018). Musical training, bilingualism, and executive function: Working memory and inhibitory control.Cogn. Res. Principles Implications3:11. 10.1186/s41235-018-0095-6
22
DiamondA. (2013). Executive functions.Annu. Rev. Psychol.64135–168. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
23
DickA. S.GarciaN. L.PrudenS. M.ThompsonW. K.HawesS. W.SutherlandM. T.et al (2019). No evidence for a bilingual executive function advantage in the nationally representative ABCD study.Nat. Hum. Behav.3692–701. 10.1038/s41562-019-0609-3
24
DolasF.JessnerU.CeddenG. (n.d.). Cognitive advantages of multilingual learning on metalinguistic awareness, working memory and l1 lexicon size: Reconceptualization of linguistic giftedness from a dmm perspective.J. Cogn.5:10. 10.5334/joc.201
25
DuñabeitiaJ. A.HernándezJ. A.AntónE.MacizoP.EstévezA.FuentesL. J.et al (2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited: Myth or reality?Exp. Psychol.61234–251. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000243
26
ErdodiL. A.AbeareC. A. (2019). Stronger together: The wechsler adult intelligence scale—Fourth edition as a multivariate performance validity test in patients with traumatic brain injury.Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol.35188–204. 10.1093/arclin/acz032
27
FürstG.GrinF. (2023). Multilingualism, multicultural experience, cognition, and creativity.Front. Psychol.14:1155158. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155158
28
GoldB. T.KimC.JohnsonN. F.KryscioR. J.SmithC. D. (2013). Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging.J. Neurosci.33387–396. 10.1523/jneurosci.3837-12.2013
29
GoldenC. J.Espe-PfeiferP.Wachsler-FelderJ. (2000). Neuropsychological interpretation of objective psychological tests (critical issues in neuropsychology), 2000th Edn. Berlin: Springer.
30
GrantA.DennisN. (2016). Increased processing speed in young adult bilinguals: Evidence from source memory judgments.Bilingualism Lang. Cogn.20327–336. 10.1017/s1366728916000729
31
GreenD. W.WeiL. (2014). A control process model of code-switching.Lang. Cogn. Neurosci.29499–511. 10.1080/23273798.2014.882515
32
GrégoireL.PerruchetP.Poulin-CharronnatB. (2014). Is the musical stroop effect able to keep its promises?: A reply to akiva-kabiri and henik (2014), gast(2014), moeller and frings (2014), and zakay (2014).Exp. Psychol.6180–83. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000222
33
Guzmán-VélezE.TranelD. (2015). Does bilingualism contribute to cognitive reserve? Cognitive and neural perspectives.Neuropsychology29139–150. 10.1037/neu0000105
34
Hervais-AdelmanA.EgorovaN.GolestaniN. (2018). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingual experience correlates with caudate volume.Brain Struct. Funct.2233495–3502. 10.1007/s00429-018-1695-0
35
HochL.Poulin-CharronnatB.TillmannB. (2011). The influence of task-irrelevant music on language processing: Syntactic and semantic structures.Front. Psychol.2:112. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00112
36
HofweberJ.MarinisT.Treffers-DallerJ. (2020). How different code-switching types modulate bilinguals’ executive functions: A dual control mode perspective.Bilingualism Lang. Cogn.23909–925. 10.1017/S1366728919000804
37
HuseynovaE.EgilmezH. O.EngurD. (2019). Effect of piano education on the attention skills of 7–12 year old children. Educ. Res. Rev.14, 327–339. 10.5897/ERR2019.3727
38
Interagency Language Roundtable. (n.d.). Ilr homepage. Available online at: https://www.govtilr.org/(accessed April 24, 2025)
39
JänckeL.LeipoldS.BurkhardA. (2018). The neural underpinnings of music listening under different attention conditions.NeuroReport29594–604. 10.1097/wnr.0000000000001019
40
KanH. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software.J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof.18:17. 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17
41
KoelschS. (2011). Toward a neural basis of music perception—A review and updated model.Front. Psychol.2:110. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00110
42
KoelschS.FritzT.SchulzeK.AlsopD.SchlaugG. (2005). Adults and children processing music: An fMRI study.NeuroImage251068–1076. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.050
43
KoelschS.GunterT.FriedericiA. D.SchrögerE. (2000). Brain indices of music processing: “nonmusicians” are musical.J. Cogn. Neurosci.12520–541. 10.1162/089892900562183
44
KoelschS.KasperE.SammlerD.SchulzeK.GunterT.FriedericiA. D. (2004). Music, language and meaning: Brain signatures of semantic processing.Nat. Neurosci.7302–307. 10.1038/nn1197
45
KrollJ. F.DussiasP. E. (2017). The benefits of multilingualism to the personal and professional development of residents of the us.Foreign Lang. Ann.50248–259. 10.1111/flan.12271
46
LahiriD.ArdilaA.DubeyS.MukherjeeA.ChatterjeeK.RayB. K. (2020). Effect of bilingualism on aphasia recovery.Aphasiology351103–1124. 10.1080/02687038.2020.1812032
47
LeeD. J.JungH.LouiP. (2019). Attention modulates electrophysiological responses to simultaneous music and language syntax processing.Brain Sci.9:305. 10.3390/brainsci9110305
48
LiD.WangX.LiY.SongD.MaW. (2023). Resource sharedness between language and music processing: An ERP study.J. Neurolinguistics67:101136. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2023.101136
49
MadrazoA. R.BernardoA. B. I. (2018). Measuring two types of inhibitory control in bilinguals and trilinguals: Is there a trilingual advantage?Psychol. Stud.6352–60. 10.1007/s12646-018-0439-9
50
MaessB.KoelschS.GunterT. C.FriedericiA. D. (2001). Musical syntax is processed in Broca’s area: An MEG study.Nat. Neurosci.4540–545. 10.1038/87502
51
Mandikal VasukiP. R.SharmaM.IbrahimR. K.ArciuliJ. (2017). Musicians’ online performance during auditory and visual statistical learning tasks.Front. Hum. Neurosci.11:114. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00114
52
MarianV.ShookA. (2012). “The cognitive benefits of being bilingual,” in Cerebrum: The dana forum on brain science, Vol. 2012. New York, NY: Dana Foundation, 1–12.
53
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals.J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.50940–967. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
54
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.MizrahiE.KaniaU.CordesA. K. (2013). Multilingual Stroop performance: Effects of trilingualism and proficiency on inhibitory control.Int. J. Multilingualism1082–104. 10.1080/14790718.2012.708037
55
MartonK.GoralM.CampanelliL.YoonJ.OblerL. K. (2016). Executive control mechanisms in bilingualism: Beyond speed of processing.Bilingualism Lang. Cogn.20613–631. 10.1017/s1366728915000930
56
McCrimmonA. W.SmithA. D. (2012). Review of the wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II).J. Psychoeduc. Assess.31337–341. 10.1177/0734282912467756
57
MerrillJ.SammlerD.BangertM.GoldhahnD.LohmannG.TurnerR.et al (2012). Perception of words and pitch patterns in song and speech.Front. Psychol.3:76. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00076
58
MiendlarzewskaE. A.TrostW. J. (2014). How musical training affects cognitive development: Rhythm, reward and other modulating variables.Front. Neurosci.7:279. 10.3389/fnins.2013.00279
59
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.Cogn. Psychol.4149–100. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
60
MoradzadehL.BlumenthalG.WiseheartM. (2014). Musical training, bilingualism, and executive function: A closer look at task switching and dual-task performance.Cogn. Sci.39992–1020. 10.1111/cogs.12183
61
MorenoS.BialystokE.BaracR.SchellenbergE. G.CepedaN. J.ChauT. (2011). Short-term music training enhances verbal intelligence and executive function.Psychol. Sci.221425–1433. 10.1177/0956797611416999
62
MorenoS.LeeY.JanusM.BialystokE. (2015). Short-term second language and music training induces lasting functional brain changes in early childhood.Child Dev.86394–406. 10.1111/cdev.12297
63
MorenoS.WodnieckaZ.TaysW.AlainC.BialystokE. (2014). Inhibitory control in bilinguals and musicians: Event related potential (ERP) evidence for experience-specific effects.PLoS One9:e94169. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094169
64
MusacchiaG.SamsM.SkoeE.KrausN. (2007). Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. Am.10415894–15898. 10.1073/pnas.0701498104
65
NanY.DongQ.ZhangY.-X.XiongW.TangW. (2016). Musical experience facilitates lexical tone processing among Mandarin speakers: Behavioral and neural evidence. Neuropsychologia91, 247–253. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.003
66
NelyubinaM.MyachykovA.AbutalebiJ.ShtyrovY.GalloF. (2025). Linguistic distance affects executive performance in young trilinguals.Acta Psychol.259:105276. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105276
67
Norman-HaignereS. V.FeatherJ.BoebingerD.BrunnerP.RitaccioA.McDermottJ. H.et al (2022). A neural population selective for song in human auditory cortex.Curr. Biol.321470–1484.e12. 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.069
68
NutleyB.DarkiF.KlingbergT. (2014). Music practice is associated with development of working memory during childhood and adolescence.Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:926. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00926
69
PatelA. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain.New York: Oxford University Press.
70
PatelA. D. (2011). Why would musical training benefit the neural encoding of speech? The OPERA Hypothesis.Front. Psychol.2:142. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00142
71
PatelA. D. (2012). The OPERA hypothesis: Assumptions and clarifications.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1252124–128. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06426.x
72
PatelA. D. (2014). Can nonlinguistic musical training change the way the brain processes speech? The expanded OPERA hypothesis.Hear. Res.30898–108. 10.1016/j.heares.2013.08.011
73
PatelA. D.DanieleJ. R. (2003). An empirical comparison of rhythm in language and music.Cognition87B35–B45. 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00187-7
74
PatraA.BoseA.MarinisT. (2019). Performance difference in verbal fluency in bilingual and monolingual speakers.Bilingualism Lang. Cogn.23204–218. 10.1017/s1366728918001098
75
PerlsteinW. M.LarsonM. J.DotsonV. M.KellyK. G. (2006). Temporal dissociation of components of cognitive control dysfunction in severe TBI: ERPs and the cued-Stroop task.Neuropsychologia44260–274. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.05.009
76
PerquinM.VaillantM.SchullerA. M.PastoreJ.DartiguesJ. F.LairM. L.et al (2013). Lifelong exposure to multilingualism: New evidence to support the Cognitive Reserve Hypothesis.PLoS One8:e62030. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062030
77
PerruchetP.Poulin-CharronnatB. (2012). Beyond transitional probability computations: Extracting word-like units when only statistical information is available.J. Mem. Lang.66807–818. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.010
78
Quinteros BaumgartC.BillickS. B. (2017). Positive cognitive effects of bilingualism and multilingualism on cerebral function: A review.Psychiatric Quart.89273–283. 10.1007/s11126-017-9532-9
79
RodenI.KönenT.BongardS.FrankenbergE.FriedrichE. K.KreutzG. (2014). Effects of music training on attention, processing speed and cognitive music abilities-findings from a longitudinal study.Appl. Cogn. Psychol.28545–557. 10.1002/acp.3034
80
RogalskyC.RongF.SaberiK.HickokG. (2011). Functional anatomy of language and music perception: Temporal and structural factors investigated using functional magnetic resonance imaging.J. Neurosci.313843–3852. 10.1523/jneurosci.4515-10.2011
81
RogersF.Metzler-BaddeleyC. (2024). The effects of musical instrument training on fluid intelligence and executive functions in healthy older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain Cogn.175:106137. 10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106137
82
Román-CaballeroR.ArnedoM.TriviñoM.LupiáñezJ. (2018). Musical practice as an enhancer of cognitive function in healthy aging - A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One13:e0207957. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207957
83
Schmidt AvendañoJ.BugosJ. A.PayneB.SchotterE. (2023). “Music and linguistic semantic anomalies: An ERP Study on predictive processing of harmonic music,” in Proceedings of the Internation Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, (Tokyo).
84
SchroederS. R.MarianV.ShookA.BartolottiJ. (2016). Bilingualism and musicianship enhance cognitive control.Neural Plasticity20161–11. 10.1155/2016/4058620
85
SchulzeK.MuellerK.KoelschS. (2012). Auditory stroop and absolute pitch: An fMRI study.Hum. Brain Mapp.341579–1590. 10.1002/hbm.22010
86
SeinfeldS.FigueroaH.Ortiz-GilJ.Sanchez-VivesM. V. (2013). Effects of music learning and piano practice on cognitive function, mood and quality of life in older adults.Front. Psychol.4:810. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00810
87
SlevcL. R.RosenbergJ. C.PatelA. D. (2009). Making psycholinguistics musical: Self-paced reading time evidence for shared processing of linguistic and musical syntax.Psychon. Bull. Rev.16374–381. 10.3758/16.2.374
88
SteinbeisN.KoelschS. (2008). Shared neural resources between music and language indicate semantic processing of musical tension-resolution patterns.Cereb. Cortex181169–1178. 10.1093/cercor/bhm149
89
StewartL. (2005). A neurocognitive approach to music reading.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1060377–386. 10.1196/annals.1360.032
90
TaoL.WangG.ZhuM.CaiQ. (2021). Bilingualism and domain-general cognitive functions from a neural perspective: A systematic review.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.125264–295. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.029
91
VaqueroL.HartmannK.RipollésP.RojoN.SierpowskaJ.FrançoisC.et al (2016). Structural neuroplasticity in expert pianists depends on the age of musical training onset.NeuroImage126106–119. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.008
92
VibellJ.LimA.SinnettS. (2021). Temporal perception and attention in trained musicians.Music Percept.38293–312. 10.1525/mp.2021.38.3.293
93
VikB. M. D.SkeieG. O.VikaneE.SpechtK. (2018). Effects of music production on cortical plasticity within cognitive rehabilitation of patients with mild traumatic brain injury.Brain Injury32634–643. 10.1080/02699052.2018.1431842
94
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (WASI) manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
95
WisdomN. M.MignognaJ.CollinsR. L. (2012). Variability in Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV subtest performance across age.Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol.27389–397. 10.1093/arclin/acs041
96
YuM.XuM.LiX.ChenZ.SongY.LiuJ. (2017). The shared neural basis of music and language.Neuroscience357208–219. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.06.003
Summary
Keywords
music training, bilingualism, multilinguals, executive functions, cognitive control
Citation
Bugos JA, Laubisch KR, Zhu A, Avendaño JS and Bryant JB (2026) Associations between music training and language fluency on cognitive control and processing speed. Front. Psychol. 16:1662938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1662938
Received
09 July 2025
Revised
18 November 2025
Accepted
03 December 2025
Published
09 January 2026
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Patricia E. Román, Loyola University Andalusia, Spain
Reviewed by
Edoardo Passarotto, University Hospital of Padua, Italy
Sara Tze Kwan Li, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Bugos, Laubisch, Zhu, Avendaño and Bryant.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jennifer A. Bugos, bugosj@usf.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.