Music training is generally assumed to improve perceptual and cognitive abilities. Although correlational data highlight positive associations, experimental results are inconclusive, raising questions about causality. Does music training have far-transfer effects, or do preexisting factors determine who takes music lessons? All behavior reflects genetic and environmental influences, but differences in emphasis—nature versus nurture—have been a source of tension throughout the history of psychology. After reviewing the recent literature, we conclude that the evidence that music training causes nonmusical benefits is weak or nonexistent, and that researchers routinely overemphasize contributions from experience while neglecting those from nature. The literature is also largely exploratory rather than theory driven. It fails to explain mechanistically how music-training effects could occur and ignores evidence that far transfer is rare. Instead of focusing on elusive perceptual or cognitive benefits, we argue that it is more fruitful to examine the social-emotional effects of engaging with music, particularly in groups, and that music-based interventions may be effective mainly for clinical or atypical populations.

中文翻译：

---

音乐训练和非音乐能力


人们普遍认为音乐训练可以提高感知和认知能力。尽管相关数据强调了正相关性，但实验结果尚无定论，引发了关于因果关系的问题。音乐训练是否具有远转移效应，或者先前存在的因素决定谁参加音乐课？所有行为都反映了遗传和环境的影响，但侧重点的差异——先天与后天——一直是整个心理学史上紧张的根源。在回顾了最近的文献后，我们得出的结论是，音乐训练带来非音乐益处的证据很弱或根本不存在，而且研究人员通常过分强调经验的贡献，而忽视自然的贡献。这些文献在很大程度上也是探索性的，而不是理论驱动的。它无法从机械上解释音乐训练效果是如何发生的，并且忽略了远转移很少见的证据。我们不关注难以捉摸的感知或认知益处，而是认为检查音乐的社会情感影响（尤其是在群体中）会更富有成效，并且基于音乐的干预措施可能主要对临床或非典型人群有效。