We addressed how rhythm complexity influences auditory–motor synchronization in musically trained individuals who perceived and produced complex rhythms while EEG was recorded. Participants first listened to two-part auditory sequences (Listen condition). Each part featured a single pitch presented at a fixed rate; the integer ratio formed between the two rates varied in rhythmic complexity from low (1:1) to moderate (1:2) to high (3:2). One of the two parts occurred at a constant rate across conditions. Then, participants heard the same rhythms as they synchronized their tapping at a fixed rate (Synchronize condition). Finally, they tapped at the same fixed rate (Motor condition). Auditory feedback from their taps was present in all conditions. Behavioral effects of rhythmic complexity were evidenced in all tasks; detection of missing beats (Listen) worsened in the most complex (3:2) rhythm condition, and tap durations (Synchronize) were most variable and least synchronous with stimulus onsets in the 3:2 condition. EEG power spectral density was lowest at the fixed rate during the 3:2 rhythm and greatest during the 1:1 rhythm (Listen and Synchronize). ERP amplitudes corresponding to an N1 time window were smallest for the 3:2 rhythm and greatest for the 1:1 rhythm (Listen). Finally, synchronization accuracy (Synchronize) decreased as amplitudes in the N1 time window became more positive during the high rhythmic complexity condition (3:2). Thus, measures of neural entrainment corresponded to synchronization accuracy, and rhythmic complexity modulated the behavioral and neural measures similarly.

Recent research suggests that perception and action are strongly interrelated and that motor experience may aid memory recognition. We investigated the role of motor experience in auditory memory recognition processes by musicians using behavioral, ERP, and neural source current density measures. Skilled pianists learned one set of novel melodies by producing them and another set by perception only. Pianists then completed an auditory memory recognition test during which the previously learned melodies were presented with or without an out-of-key pitch alteration while the EEG was recorded. Pianists indicated whether each melody was altered from or identical to one of the original melodies. Altered pitches elicited a larger N2 ERP component than original pitches, and pitches within previously produced melodies elicited a larger N2 than pitches in previously perceived melodies. Cortical motor planning regions were more strongly activated within the time frame of the N2 following altered pitches in previously produced melodies compared with previously perceived melodies, and larger N2 amplitudes were associated with greater detection accuracy following production learning than perception learning. Early sensory (N1) and later cognitive (P3a) components elicited by pitch alterations correlated with predictions of sensory echoic and schematic tonality models, respectively, but only for the perception learning condition, suggesting that production experience alters the extent to which performers rely on sensory and tonal recognition cues. These findings provide evidence for distinct time courses of sensory, schematic, and motoric influences within the same recognition task and suggest that learned auditory–motor associations influence responses to out-of-key pitches.

Music performance requires control of two sequential structures: the ordering of pitches and the temporal intervals between successive pitches. Whether pitch and temporal structures are processed as separate or integrated features remains unclear. A repetition suppression paradigm compared neural and behavioral correlates of mapping pitch sequences and temporal sequences to motor movements in music performance. Fourteen pianists listened to and performed novel melodies on an MR-compatible piano keyboard during fMRI scanning. The pitch or temporal patterns in the melodies either changed or repeated (remained the same) across consecutive trials. We expected decreased neural response to the patterns (pitch or temporal) that repeated across trials relative to patterns that changed. Pitch and temporal accuracy were high, and pitch accuracy improved when either pitch or temporal sequences repeated over trials. Repetition of either pitch or temporal sequences was associated with linear BOLD decrease in frontal–parietal brain regions including dorsal and ventral premotor cortex, pre-SMA, and superior parietal cortex. Pitch sequence repetition (in contrast to temporal sequence repetition) was associated with linear BOLD decrease in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) while pianists listened to melodies they were about to perform. Decreased BOLD response in IPS also predicted increase in pitch accuracy only when pitch sequences repeated. Thus, behavioral performance and neural response in sensorimotor mapping networks were sensitive to both pitch and temporal structure, suggesting that pitch and temporal structure are largely integrated in auditory–motor transformations. IPS may be involved in transforming pitch sequences into spatial coordinates for accurate piano performance.