{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020794304983139753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005807418508804796, 'mean_word_length': 5.640547263681592, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In Response to: ‘Lighting up the Mind’ by Julia Usher (BJMT 12 (1) 1998)

Understanding the brain and the influence music has upon it remains a phenomenon little understood within science and human functioning. Research into the neuropsychology of music is in its early developmental ~hase, and is often contradictory in methodology, findmgs and theoretical framework. The complexity and differences of this research suggest that the application of theory as proposed by Julia Usher's article is indeed relevant in developing an understanding of the processing and impact of music within the brain, and its practical implications for music therapy treatment. Such links start to offer deeper explanatory frameworks than the mere observation that 'music works'. Although as clinicians we have all observed this, as a profession we are a long way from offering evidence to convince sceptics or others within our professional spheres. The research into music and the brain tends to focus on two approaches. Gardner (1982) describes the first of these as a 'bottom-up' approach, where one musical component only is tested. This contrasts with the 'topdown' approach which starts from an organised piece of music or gestalt musical form, and draws heavily on the importance of musical schemata. Erdonmez (1993) has applied such a paradigm to music therapy practice, comparing the gestalt experience of improvisation or guided imagery to music to the 'bottom-down' experience of singing a specific song or rehabilitation of specific skills within music therapy. It is important to consider the concept that music is a complex structure combining the components of pitch, harmony, rhythm, timbre and intensity. Take, for example, melody, which is formed by any number of pitches in simple or more complex combinations; or rhythm, formed by sounds and silences. In addition, when perceiving music, the listener may not only be experiencing these musical factors, but may also experience additional extramusical associations which cannot be separated from the music. In examining emotion in music, Meyer (1956) stipulated that whilst perceiving and responding to music does involve cognitive processes, these need not be conscious, unless reflection and deliberation are involved. Should these processes remain unconscious, then such mental tensions are experienced as emotional affect rather than thought-processes. Considering theory from the psychology of music, Thaut (1990) emphasises the need to develop not only an understanding of the perception of stimulus properties but also the responses to these which are meaningful determinants of nonmusical behaviour. He explores the links between music perception and subsequent neuro-behavioural responses, particularly arousal and its relationship to affective responses. In doing so, he depicts a model which suggests that music stimulates the brain reward centres through activation, organises through structure, and makes associative connections which in turn facilitate awareness and recognition of significant feelings. Usher suggests discriminating between 'fields' of responsiveness, and certainly this idea is supported from the literature examining the neuropsychology of artistic function which links pathology to artistic result (Gardner 1982). The tendency to relate changes in an individual predominantly to emotional reactions is one which still prevails within the 'artistic' world of music therapy, often without a wider examination of what effects the pathology may bring to bear upon an individual's ability to process material and express musically. It is essential also to consider pathology and neurological processes to ensure objective interpretation which can be communicated credibly to colleagues outside the music therapy profession. Usher's definition of the process of 'sufficiency' as effected by neurochemical sensitivity as opposed to what may appear 'resistiveness' is a clear example of how developing an understanding in pathology can only aid our interpretation of clients' responses. Despite theories of hemispheric specialisation which prevail in the common understanding of music and the brain, there remains little evidence to suggest unequivocally that either hemisphere is superior, or even that ear advantage actually reflects cerebral superiority. Sergent (1993) stresses that to understand the perception of music, we need initially to identify underlying operations, rather than rely on a dichotic approach to hemispheric processing which has yielded few definitive results or provided a model for musical processing. She suggests that the number of factors involved in processing musical material may go some way in explaining the inconsistent and often contradictory empirical investigations into hemispheric specialisation in processing musical functions. Primarily, she emphasises that different strategies engage different cerebral structures, resulting in cerebral interdependence rather than superiority. Thus, experimental design should incorporate either the gestalt musical task or functions involved in processing specific parameters. For example, a musical task recruits various cerebral functions which cannot be separated from other simultaneous thought processes, i.e. separating the physical from the musical during the act of play-