Talk:Neuroscience of music

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Nucleus accumbens#Research|Nucleus accumbens]] The anchor (#Research) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Early remarks

I think that a connection to Orpheus should be made in the article if his picture is to be put at the top of it.

Some of this is innaccurate.

Somebody added "<-- most of this is BS." after the 2nd paragraph of "Auditory Cortices". So maybe somebody that knows why should fix it to be more accurate, instead of just complaining about it. (Also, I noticed that paragraph refers to the results of some studies, but doesn't even given an example of any such study, so I'm not sure I trust that the supposed findings of these studies are real.)

Interesting

Very interesting. Wikipedia must be the second greatest website on the internet, behind the almighty google. Both make me smart. Wikipedia good for brain.

Cheers for that, mate =D --Malgalad 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia thank you so much about such information

Lethokuhle Banda (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actively taught students?

"same parts of the brains light up": say what parts.

"actively taught students" "passivly": say what these two teaching methods are.

Sub-Par

I'd love to fix up this page but it may be better to start from scratch... for instance, I do not believe lyrics are one of the three main components of music. Gray 2001 is not the correct source to cite when speaking of avian fitness. Whales and Birds are probably not some of the most phylogenetically complex groups of animals, (what that has to do with music, I am not sure...). Linguistics and music have interesting similarities, but the section on linguistics neither references nor connects to the rest of the article and should probably be removed or re-written. The auditory processing section is promising and could be expanded on; particularly useful would be a connection to what we know about avian brains. A section on vocal learning is a jarring omission to this article and should be added.

yeah I agree. I thought about trying to fix it up a while back but it's in a pretty sad state that I wasn't sure it was worth trying to fix what was here already. I suspect that the original was a copyvio anyway, given the nature of the inroduction. My main point is that I don't think anyone would object to a total overhaul, so go ahead if you're feeling brave. Also, and if you need any info about auditory processing and grouping that isn't really neuro based let me know, I have refs galore. Sparkleyone 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've done a bit of editing now and I think the article is better than before. Quite a few things are covered, however, that I don't know enough about to feel comfortable editting, so it'd be nice if someone else would take a go at the latter parts of the article. I may come back to this in time but i'm probably about done for now.--bill 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Williamemersonwood[reply]

I don't think this article is very good, but I don't have the time or expertise in this area :( 69.54.27.38 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a little about this subject, but not enough to really fix concepts/science presented here. I could, however, attack the grammar and style. I'm not sure if that would be worth doing at this stage for this article, though. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.113.221 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only looking at Pitch for some ideas on something and can see quite a few issues. Apart from a general lack of citation, it appears to me that much of it is not verifiable: 'in India there are many notes in between what we call a C and a C sharp' - firstly is this limited to just India itself or the Indian subcontinent? This is an ambiguous statement to say the least. I’d be interested to know is this true and also know more about it.

Reference is made to a researcher Petr Janata but what does he research? Is he qualified to research?

From the little I’ve read the article does need a major overhaul that encompasses various theories. If there are several ‘camps’ then why not put under a heading provided the(ir) work is verifiable. The current state is sad because it could be a very interesting and informative article. --Gingerzilla (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a musician (and not a neurologist) some of the musical terminology is either wierd or plain wrong. For instance, the way "octave scale" is used, it probably mean "diatonic scale" and the reference to it being "pleasurable" is a western bias. Also "resonant frequency" has more to do with the creation of pitch, not the perception of pitch. Perception of pitch is derived from the harmonic series. --Geof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.210.239 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a rewrite by someone with knowledge on the subject. It doesn't have a proper flow to it. ---Jess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to do the merger as proposed. Morton Shumway—talk 11:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed to merge Music and the brain here.

Rationale: Articles have identical subjects. Only their respective emphasis differs slightly, so that both articles would add to each other smoothly. I propose to keep "Cognitive neuroscience of music" as the title, since this is the actual term for the science which is likewise addressed over at "Music and the brain".

Morton Shumway—talk 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support long overdue, the other page is just a content fork. --Selket ^Talk 17:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support MartinPoulter (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Silentrebel (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support get on with it. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent merger discussion

Late Support. Shouldn't the title of the combined article be 'Neuroscience of music'? Isn't it a broader term than 'cognitive neuroscience'?

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. Traditionally, neuroscience has been seen as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, physics, and psychology. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. Aaditya 7 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC) [moved here by Morton Shumway—talk 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC).][reply]

I will do the merger with the current title. After that we should discuss this question. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 10:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Another merger proposal

I have also noticed the article Perception and production of music, which seems to cover much of the same material as this article. I believe this material should also be merged into this one. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article P&P covers aspects that are not covered by the CS article, yet exclusively from a CogNeuSci perspective. A separate article on other aspects of P&P may be nice, but only if not completely in the paradigm of CogNeuSci of Music. 㓟 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. They are two articles about the same subject. Lova Falk talk 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm willing to make the merge if it is still supported. Trying to bring everything under the umbrella of Music Psychology. geordie (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do it, please. This proposal is 2 years old. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Performance section merged in (I put it second, but please reorder as you see fit), summary information on pitch and rhythm used on Music psychology page. Redirect set up. geordie (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sensationofmusic.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sensationofmusic.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sensationofmusic.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch

We should add information in the "Pitch" section about phase-locking and mode-locking of action potentials in the auditory nerve and subsequent nuclei to stimulus frequencies, and how this probably relates to the pitches perceived. There is plenty of literature on this from guinea pigs, chinchillas, and other species. I will add this soon if no one else gets to it. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Hipposandmangos (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advances in Cognitive Neuroscience of Music

I am not an expert in this area by any means, but I thought it might be of benefit to add a new section related more towards the history and advances in the neuroscience of music. --Hipposandmangos (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Hipposandmangos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.106.34 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]