Main neurochemicals involved in our appreciation of music

[Zeuzzz]

Anyone? I've seen some scientists mention areas of the brain that are always active when we listen to music, and these change depending on whether we like the music or not, but I'm curious if theres an accompanying neurochemical explanation for the triggering of these active areas. From what I've read the part in the frontal lobe called BA47 is the part that helps us predict what comes next in a sequence, and could be one of the most vital parts to appreciating music. But as far as the neurochemicals involved, I dont have a clue.

I've been reading Oliver Sacks, and its intrigued me. I'm gonna scan back through the book and see if I missed it, as he's a neuroscientist so I'm sure he had a section on the main chems involved in music appreciation somewhere, but I cant remember what he said off the top of my head.

[INRM]

Zeuzzz

From what I've read the part in the frontal lobe called BA47 is the part that helps us predict what comes next in a sequence, and could be one of the most vital parts to appreciating music. But as far as the neurochemicals involved, I dont have a clue.

That's the only part of the brain required to predict things?

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz

That's the only part of the brain required to predict things?


I doubt it. But Brodmann area 47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area_47 does seems particularly atuned to prediciting sequences in music. So I was wondering if anyone here knows the neurochemicals that make this area function. Someone on another forum asked me what drugs/neurochemicals are responsible for music appreciation and no one knew, so I did my usual, go ask the Jref crew, they're bound to know.

This is the only publication I've found that goes all the way down to possible neurochemical explanations:

V. Menona, and D.J. Levitind, The rewards of music listening: Response and physiological connectivity of the mesolimbic system (http://ego.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/levitin/research/Menon&Levitin_2005.pdf) - NeuroImage 28 (2005) 175 – 184

Although the neural underpinnings of music cognition have been widely studied in the last 5 years, relatively little is known about the neuroscience underlying emotional reactions that music induces in listeners. Many people spend a significant amount of time listening to music, and its emotional power is assumed but not well understood. Here, we use functional and effective connectivity analyses to show for the first time that listening to music strongly modulates activity in a network of mesolimbic structures involved in reward processing including the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and the ventral tegmental area (VTA), as well as the hypothalamus and insula, which are thought to be involved in regulating autonomic and physiological responses to rewarding and emotional stimuli. Responses in the NAc and the VTA were strongly correlated pointing to an association between dopamine release and NAc response to music. Responses in the NAc and the hypothalamus were also strongly correlated across subjects, suggesting a mechanism by which listening to pleasant music evokes physiological reactions. Effective connectivity confirmed these findings, and showed significant VTA-mediated interaction of the NAc with the hypothalamus, insula, and orbitofrontal cortex. The enhanced functional and effective connectivity between brain regions mediating reward, autonomic, and cognitive processing provides insight into understanding why listening to music is one of the most rewarding and pleasurable human experiences. [...]



They come to the conclusion that the Ventral tegmentum releasing dopamine is what causes it.

A remarkable aspect of our findings relates to detection of significant activation of the VTA. The VTA is the site of mesolimbic dopamine neuron cell bodies that project to the NAc, and dopamine release by the VTA is known to be crucial for reward processing (Berridge and Robinson, 2003). Further, we found that NAc and VTA activations were significantly correlated, suggesting an association between dopamine release and NAc response to pleasant music. It is well known that many aspects of reward processing depend on this mesolimbic pathway (Yun et al., 2004). For example, research has shown that increases in dopamine levels in the VTA and NAc are a key factor in the reinforcing effects of multiple addictive drugs (Robinson and Berridge, 2003). More commonly, natural rewards such as food and water also cause the release of dopamine in the NAc and the VTA (Kelley and Berridge, 2002). It is likely that the rewarding and reinforcing aspects of listening to music are mediated by increased dopamine levels in the VTA and the NAc. Furthermore, the hedonic aspect of reward is thought to be modulated by endogenous opioid peptide transmission within the NAc, which in turn, is known to be regulated by dopaminergic input from the VTA (Kelley and Berridge, 2002). Consistent with this, musical pleasure can be blocked by naloxone (Goldstein, 1980), a known opioid antagonist.

However, it remains to be investigated whether dopamine truly facilitates the ‘‘liking’’, as opposed to the ‘‘wanting’’ reactions to hedonic impact of music (Berridge and Robinson, 2003). Our data are also consistent with neuropsychological theories which have proposed that positive affect is associated with increased brain dopamine levels (Ashby et al., 1999). Music is clearly a means for increasing positive affect.

Taken together, our data suggest that dynamic interactions between the NAc, the VTA, and the hypothalamus may play an important role in regulating emotional responses to music. In fact, neuroanatomical studies have provided extensive evidence for direct connections between all three structures (Zahm, 2000). In conclusion, our findings shed new light on understanding the neurochemical and neuroantomical basis for why music has an incredible power to move us, and for why listening to music is one of the most rewarding and pleasurable human experiences. These findings are likely to have broad implications for understanding the psychological and physiological benefits of listening to music.


I would have thought there would be more than dopamine involved, music should make our brain release a plethora of music specific chems, as its effect on people is quite unlike anything else we experience. In the manner of the colours we think we see, sounds are simply vibrations of air until our brain identifies and translates them for us. Try telling that to someone listening to music they love, and this couldn't seem more ridiculous.

[INRM]

It seems to be used for processing syntax and predicting syntax in music and languages...

[The Man]

Booze, is my preferred ‘neurochemical’ in the appreciation of music.

[Zeuzzz]

Booze, is my preferred ‘neurochemical’ in the appreciation of music.

And mine anything that stimulates 5-HT1A receptors and changes the action of serotogenic SERTs to reverse direction, so they pump serotonin back into the synapse from inside the cell, instead of removing it. Works absolute wonders for music appreciation. Only problem is you sometimes start to appreciate music you usually dont.

I suppose its a bit of a silly question really. Music effects everyone differently, it can provoke any mood, positive or negative. So it depends on the person. And theres no way of knowing if someone hears music in their mind the same way we do. Their mind may interpret the information the brain recieves completely differently to us so it sounds completely different, thus why everyone has their own musical tastes. You might aswell ask what chemicals aren't responsible.

[The Man]

And mine anything that stimulates 5-HT1A receptors and changes the action of serotogenic SERTs to reverse direction, so they pump serotonin back into the synapse from inside the cell, instead of removing it. Works absolute wonders for music appreciation. Only problem is you sometimes start to appreciate music you usually dont.

I suppose its a bit of a silly question really. Music effects everyone differently, it can provoke any mood, positive or negative. So it depends on the person. And theres no way of knowing if someone hears music in their mind the same way we do. Their mind may interpret the information the brain recieves completely differently to us so it sounds completely different, thus why everyone has their own musical tastes. You might aswell ask what chemicals aren't responsible.


I had a roommate who went through a “RAP” phase and “COUNTRY” phase, but I just could not get into them, even when I was drunk. However, he was always into classic rock (one of my favorites) and I even got him interested in classical music.

[Dancing David]

I would say that there are too many possible routes to why we like music to single a certain system, there is a huge emotional comonents, memory, association and other things associated with pleasure in listening to music. It is like dancing, people enjoy it for ahuge number of reasons.

Now if people find it pleasurable there will be involvement of the limbic system and various cortex areas, but audio, visual areas go through a lot of time sharing as well.

[Zeuzzz]

Is pitch a purely psychological construct?

[Zeuzzz]

Perhaps I should clarify that question out of the blue above :)

Everyone hears music differently, even though the sound vibrations are always the same. I remember some studies that were done done on people who cant hear differences in pitch at all for example, so all melodic modern music sounds terrible to them, all they enjoy listening to is drumming and very rhythmic music. And there are people that have no sense of rhythm at all, and cant even clap a simple beat. These people were mystified their entire lives about how people could enjoy 'normal' music, as to them it doesn't sound anything like we hear it.

So, this is why I say that pitch is a purely psychological construct. I appreciate that pitch can also be created and determined definitively in the makeup of the sound waves, but how we hear that pitch of the physical sound in our heads is the purely psychological part. Right?

[Zeuzzz]

............right?

[Plagiarius]

And mine anything that stimulates 5-HT1A receptors and changes the action of serotogenic SERTs to reverse direction, so they pump serotonin back into the synapse from inside the cell, instead of removing it. Works absolute wonders for music appreciation. Only problem is you sometimes start to appreciate music you usually dont.

I suppose its a bit of a silly question really. Music effects everyone differently, it can provoke any mood, positive or negative. So it depends on the person. And theres no way of knowing if someone hears music in their mind the same way we do. Their mind may interpret the information the brain recieves completely differently to us so it sounds completely different, thus why everyone has their own musical tastes. You might aswell ask what chemicals aren't responsible.

Well the frontal lobe is the most serotogenic area of the brain. If it is indeed responsible for discerning musical syntax, which I can even feel giving me enjoyment without the use of entheogens, you may well have conducted many experiments prior to this thread answering your very question ;) Still though, effects elucidated by neurotransmitters are rarely done by the single effort of a specific one, nor do many drugs target 5HT specifically, especially those involved in SERT reversal. Appreciation of music is down to many factors!

[Bikewer]

I just read Oliver Sacks' "Musicophelia" a few months ago, but it's entirely geared from his standpoint as a psychologist, rather than as a neuroscientist.
He talks about the effects of music, and the way those effects can go wrong from a psychological standpoint, but I don't recall any discussion of the actual brain chemistry.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps I should clarify that question out of the blue above :)

Everyone hears music differently, even though the sound vibrations are always the same. I remember some studies that were done done on people who cant hear differences in pitch at all for example, so all melodic modern music sounds terrible to them, all they enjoy listening to is drumming and very rhythmic music. And there are people that have no sense of rhythm at all, and cant even clap a simple beat. These people were mystified their entire lives about how people could enjoy 'normal' music, as to them it doesn't sound anything like we hear it.

So, this is why I say that pitch is a purely psychological construct. I appreciate that pitch can also be created and determined definitively in the makeup of the sound waves, but how we hear that pitch of the physical sound in our heads is the purely psychological part. Right?

Um, here is the scoop and then maybe you can rephrase your question, try to use the same terminology and then we can work on clarity.

There are these pressure waves in a fluid medium, for convenience I will call them 'noise' but that is not noise as in 'noise to signal ratio'.

Then there are physical responses in an organic body to the mechanical effects of the pressure waves, these may vary from vibrating the tympanum (eardrum) to secondary vibrations in the chest wall (like at a disco).

The motion of the tympanum sets up secondary motions in the inner ear, which eventual activate certain receptors in the inner ear (audio receptors), these create 'sensations', however these are not yet something you will 'hear'.

The sensations are then processed into perceptions, which is where perceived pitch of a tone comes in.

So yes perceptions are totally psychological phenomena in an organic brain, however they have some correlation to frequency in the pressure waves as well.

So between noise, sensation and perception, what was the question?

[Zeuzzz]

Still though, effects elucidated by neurotransmitters are rarely done by the single effort of a specific one, nor do many drugs target 5HT specifically, especially those involved in SERT reversal. Appreciation of music is down to many factors!


MDMA does. And anyone who has tried it will know exactly what I mean when I say it increases the appreciation of music through the roof. I was speaking to someone recently about this elsewhere, this is what he said about his first MDMA experience and music:

Finally after what seemed like an eternity swim gasped, “wooooooowwwww!” A huge grin spreading across his face. He looked around at the room he had been sitting in for the past 40 minutes. The same room he had spent countless hours upon hours chilling in smoking with his friends. It seemed to take on a new life. It coursed with energy. Energy… He felt a sense of energy coming from deep within his soul. He had never felt so energetic and high in his life. He felt as though he was pure adrenaline. He stood up effortlessly and simply stood in place moving his limbs. Feeling the grace with which they swept through the air with no effort whatsoever. He felt light as a feather. It was at this moment the music hit him.

The music, the music! Swim always had a deep love and appreciation for music, and was even getting into electronic music a little with the help of his friend, but he had never heard music like this (and probably never has again, even with repeated mdma experiences). He felt as though he was listening to music for the first time, as though music was a completely hidden mystery and he was the explorer who managed to discover it. The sounds reverberated through his body and soul. He felt as though his entire body was an ear that absorbed the sound, pushing it to his heart which ate it up like a car eats fuel. He was immersed in the music like never before. Nothing else mattered. He began to move his arms and legs to the beat, no that doesn’t even explain it. He became the beat. His entire body attuned itself entirely to the music so that his mind didn’t even need to send signals for it to move, it just took on a life of its own, a symbiotic organism composed of his body, his soul, and the music.

And he's not exaggerating.

Though MDMA does have more effects on the brain than just 5HT stimulation and sert reversal, so it doesn't necissarily have to be these. But something that it does DRASTICALLY increases musical appreciation.

[Plagiarius]

There is additional Noradrenaline and Dopamine released with reuptake inhibition but in lesser quantities. There's no need to try and explain your subjective experience man, I've had some of my own ;) One thing I can say is that psychedelic drugs work with serotonin (5HT2A specifically) and also drastically increase musical appreciation, so it seems to be the common causation. The areas of the brain effected are different though and the mechanisms behind the hallucinogens are not fully understood.

[Zeuzzz]

There's no need to try and explain your subjective experience man, I've had some of my own ;)


Yeah, I do know its effects from experience too, but his report is far better than anything I would have written. Keep forgetting you dont have to swim here, just got into the habit when talking about this subject.

One thing I can say is that psychedelic drugs work with serotonin (5HT2A specifically) and also drastically increase musical appreciation, so it seems to be the common causation.


Yea. Thanks. Looks like I'm getting slowly closer. Anyone know of any other receptors that when stimulated create an increase in music appreciation? the serotogenic systems and 5HT2A receptors do seem to play a major role, but I would have thought theres gotta be more. I also know that drugs like mephedrone greatly increase music appreciation, but I dont have a clue about the pharmacology of that one. And neither does google scholar by the looks of things; http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=mephedrone&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB290GB290&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws

Or, any chems that cause purely musical auditory hallucinations by changing the sound of music, or creating it where none exists would be interesting. Endogenous chems or otherwise. That would be interesting to know as well, in relation to how the brain responds to and creates music. Cant seem to find much info about this one either...

[Zeuzzz]

[.............]
So yes perceptions are totally psychological phenomena in an organic brain, however they have some correlation to frequency in the pressure waves as well.



Thanks for the explanations.

Could you expand a bit on what this correlation involves please?

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the explanations.

Could you expand a bit on what this correlation involves please?

Patterns of response are conditioned to patterns of stimulation?

What are you wondering?

[Zeuzzz]

Patterns of response are conditioned to patterns of stimulation?

What are you wondering?


I just find it odd how people can listen to exactly the same music and have completely different opinions on if its good or not.

I like anything that is melodic, with definate chord progressions and a melody that fits well with the chords, probably due to my piano playing. When I did my grade eight and I had to sing for the oral exam, I failed that part miserably, but in my head the tune that I was humming was pitch perfect, even though it obviously wasn't. And when I play some of the melodic music that I like to other people and they hate it, and I always wonder what they are hearing in their heads. I suppose its very hard to tell.

I was just wondering if theres a neurochemical explanation for why people like music, but it seems to be quite a hard area to get consistant reactions. Music. I mean what the hell is it?

Read some good comments on amazon for a book i've brought, which sort of sums up what I'm getting at. But to be frank, I dont really know what I'm getting at, its hard to articulate :)

This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525949690/ref=nosim/drugsforum-20)

Half-whispered in the background, it's hard to get too far away from suspicion. The question remains: Does analyzing music scientifically take away from the aesthetic appreciation?

I had once thought of music as the ultimate proof of the glorious irrelevancy of science. But it's really no different than any other pleasure. Does learning cosmology detract from the beauty of a star filled night? Can a couple of physics lessons dull the gaping excitement of seeing a massive rainbow absorb the sky? I conquered this ambivalence personally, while lying in the sun, on a hot day, at altitude, following a final in a physics class. Everything clicked together in my head, the nuclear reaction I watch sizzling eight minutes and eighteen seconds ago, the light as waves, the heat as energy, the energy as mass, the waves as particles. It all clicked, and it was fine. We were all vibrating together in the same rich meaninglessness, and a good feeling felt good whether I purposefully conquered every little detail or it blindsided me and left my head spinning.

That's the day I got it. That science is not a static pool of knowledge. It is not a religion. It is not a method. It is a process, and a spiritual one at that. That was the day, lying there, absorbing photons and resonating passively in the hum, the Ohmmmmm. Science is as much a quest as any other system of belief. And nothing is off limits. Nothing is reduced by knowing that another layer of explanation can be sought out.

And what better subject to tackle scientifically than the beauty of music. Like consciousness, like science, music too is an arbitrary punctuation around organically transmitted, unconsciously determined, preferred patterns of influenced interactions.

So, how's the book?

Not bad. He does a nice job of illustrating the importance of music in our lives and the emotional impact music can convey. He has a nice introductory section where he defines the basic terms of music such as pitch, rhythm, tempo. It's the kind of stuff you get the first week in a music appreciation class, and Levitin does a nice job with it. He never takes his eye off the bigger questions though, for example, he opens his definition of pitch with the disclaimer: "Pitch is a purely psychological construct." He then needs an introduction to neuroscience before he can connect the two streams, discussing the hotter than ever topics of mind, brain, and consciousness.

[Zeuzzz]

Keep forgetting you dont have to swim here, just got into the habit when talking about this subject.


just thought I should probably clarify for those who didnt have a clue what I meant by this, s.w.i.m is an acronym for 'Someone Who Isn't Me'. But I dont think that not self incriminating is a rule here, so it doesn't really matter...

[calebprime]

I own a copy of the Levitan book, which is pretty hip, but

it spends way too much time in the introductory stuff, and,

saying "pitch is a purely psychological construct" isn't wrong, but it oversimplifies, leaves much out, and implies some wacky vagueness to our pitch-perception that just ain't so.

For example, mostly, pitch is frequency. Mostly, people can agree.
Mostly, we hear the same thing.

I'm sure he qualifies and fills it in, though.

Still, there's some oversimplification in the book, I agree with Orpheus* on that one...


* A conductor and composer who hasn't been around much lately...

[Plagiarius]

Or, any chems that cause purely musical auditory hallucinations by changing the sound of music, or creating it where none exists would be interesting. Endogenous chems or otherwise. That would be interesting to know as well, in relation to how the brain responds to and creates music. Cant seem to find much info about this one either...

You will be interested in a Tryptamine known as Dipropyltryptamine then, apparently it has the most profound effect on the auditory sense of any hallucinogen.

[Zeuzzz]

You will be interested in a Tryptamine known as Dipropyltryptamine then, apparently it has the most profound effect on the auditory sense of any hallucinogen.


Thats very interesting, thanks. I think I remember Shulgin mentioning this in one of his reports actually.

Just remembered where I have seen it, from a very good article on Shulgin at rolling stone:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/2c_t_7_s_bad_trip/Content?oid=283446&showFullText=true

Another compelling example is a drug called DIPT that is remarkable among psychedelics for its auditory, as well as visual, effects. In fact, after tasting DIPT for the first time, Shulgin only noticed the onset of the drug because he happened to be listening to the kitchen radio, which suddenly sounded terribly out of tune. "I assumed it was probably some little group somewhere," he remembers. "It turned out to be the Philadelphia Symphony, which is very excellent. It was me who was out of tune!"

In TIHKAL, Shulgin had expressed great interest in learning how DIPT might affect the brain's auditory processing centers. And years later, he is still wondering aloud if studying DIPT might have other benefits. For example, could it cast some light on schizophrenia, which usually results in auditory, rather than visual, delusions?


Gonna have to look up which brain sites it works on. Though I dont think that much research has been done on this one yet.

[Zeuzzz]

I wonder if DIPT is one of the active triptamines in Heimia salicifolia (http://www.erowid.org/plants/sinicuichi/sinicuichi.shtml). A friend of mine had some of that, and after he tried it he said he could hear music playing perfectly, and kept going round his house to try to find what stereo was playing it! But he said it was very hard to locate, because the volume of the music was the same no matter where he was. Weird stuff.

And heres Shulgins original report in TIHKAL when he invented/discovered DIPT for the first time: http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal09.shtml

[calebprime]

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=32998


Fascinating, and definitely a drug I don't want to try.

Shulgin a careful nibbler, but way more macho than I'd ever want to be.

[luchog]

I just read Oliver Sacks' "Musicophelia" a few months ago, but it's entirely geared from his standpoint as a psychologist, rather than as a neuroscientist.
Erm, Dr. Oliver Sacks is, in fact, a neurologist, not a psychologist, and his degrees are in biology and chemistry, not psychology. He worked as clinical professor of neurology, and helped found the Institute for Music and Neurologic Function. Not sure if you're talking about the right person here.