Content uploaded by Alex Bennet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alex Bennet on Mar 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol. I Summer/Fall 2009 Nos. 3 & 4
A Research and Educational
Publication of The Monroe Institute
Journal
TMI
by Alex Bennet, PhD, and David
Bennet, PhD
Alex and David Bennet are co-
founders of the Mountain Quest
Institute (MQI), a research, retreat,
and learning center nestled in the
Allegheny Mountains. MQI is
dedicated to helping individuals
achieve personal and professional growth and organizations
create and sustain high performance in a rapidly changing,
uncertain, and increasingly complex world. (See www.
mountainquestinstitute.com).
The Bennets are co-authors of the seminal work
Organizational Survival in the New World: The
Intelligent Complex Adaptive System (Elsevier, 2004),
a new theory of the firm that turns the living system meta-
phor into a reality for organizations. More recently, they
published Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences
and Humanities: Moving from Research to Action (MQI
Press, 2007).
Alex was the first chief knowledge officer of the U.S.
Department of the Navy. David’s experience spans the public
and private sectors, most recently as CEO and chairman of the
board of a professional services firm. Alex has her doctorate in
human and organizational systems and holds degrees in man-
agement for organizational effectiveness, human development,
English, and marketing. David has his doctorate in neurosci-
ence and adult learning and holds degrees in mathematics,
physics, nuclear physics, liberal arts, and human and organiza-
tional development. The Bennets have been TMI professional
members since 2002.
THE HUMAN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM:
MUSIC AND BRAIN COHERENCE
Next Page
A version of this paper appeared in VINE: The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, vol. 38,
no. 3 (September 2008).
IN THIS ISSUE
The Human Knowledge System:
Music and Brain Coherence
Alex Bennet, PhD, & David Bennet, PhD
Professional Seminar
Keynote Speaker
Expanded Vision, Extended Content
Leslie France
What Do You See?
Defining the Essence of Consciousness
Kudos to the Professional
Membership
2
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
Abstract
Purpose—This paper explores the relationship between music and learning in the mind/brain.
Design/methodology/approach—Taking a consilience approach, this paper briefly introduces how music affects
the mind/brain, then moves through several historical highlights of our emergent understanding of the role of music in
learning—for example, the much-misunderstood Mozart effect. Then the role of music in learning is explored from a
neuroscience perspective, with specific focus on its potential to achieve brain coherence. Finally, using a specific example
of sound technology focused on achieving hemispheric synchronization, research findings, anecdotes, and experiential
interactions are integrated to touch on the potential offered by this new understanding.
Findings—Listening to music regularly (along with replaying tunes in our brains) clearly helps our neurons stay
active and alive and our synapses intact. Listening to the right music does appear to facilitate learning, and participating
more fully in music making appears to provide additional cerebral advantages. Further, some music supports hemispher-
ic synchronization, offering the opportunity to achieve brain coherence and significantly improve learning.
Keywords—Music, Learning, Brain Coherence, Hemispheric Synchronization, the Mozart effect, Transfer Effects
Introduction
When Charles Darwin wrote his Autobiography in 1887, he was moved to say,
If I had to live my life again I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once a
week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied could thus have been kept active through use (Amen 2005,
158).
Today there’s no doubt that the brain atrophies through disuse, that is, neurons die and synapses wither when they
are not used (Zull 2002), but would listening to music once a week have kept more of those neurons and synapses active
and alive? And if so, what if we participated more fully in music making? How could we maximize our learning?
In this paper we briefly introduce how music affects the mind/brain, then move through several historical highlights
of our emergent understanding of the role of music in learning—for example, the much-misunderstood Mozart effect.
Then we explore the role of music in learning from a neuroscience perspective, with specific focus on its potential to
achieve brain coherence. Finally, using a specific example of sound technology focused on achieving hemispheric syn-
chronization, we integrate research findings, anecdotes, and experiential interactions to touch on the potential offered by
this new understanding.
The approach of this exploration through the literature—peppered with anecdotes and experience—is one of consil-
ience: specifically, the integrating of knowledge from a variety of fields to discover a common groundwork of explanation
(Wilson 1991). This paper considers the findings of, among others, psychologists, physicists, neuroscientists, musicians,
educators, biologists, engineers, and medical doctors.
Brain coherence is considered the orderly and harmonious connectedness between the two hemispheres of the
brain—in other words, when the two hemispheres of the brain are synchronized, thus the term hemispheric synchroni-
zation. Borrowing from physics, when the brain is in a coherent state, systems are performing optimally and virtually no
energy is wasted.1 This, then, would be considered an optimal state for learning.
While specialization and selection occur in various parts of the brain, they do not occur independently (Levy 1985).
As will be demonstrated, one of the “jobs” of music in the process of evolution and growth is to increase the interconnec-
tions between the two hemispheres of the brain. We begin.
How music affects the mind/brain
Music and the human mind have a unique relationship that is not yet fully understood. As Hodges forwards,
By studying the effects of music, neuroscientists are able to discover things about the brain that they cannot
know through other cognitive processes. Likewise, through music we are able to discover, share, express, and
know about aspects of the human experience that we cannot know through other means. Musical insights into
the human condition are uniquely powerful experiences that cannot be replaced by any other form of experience
(Hodges 2000, 21).
While the effect of music on the critical aspects of learning, attention, and memory may be a relatively new area
of focused research, the human brain may very well be hardwired for music. As Weinberger, a neuroscientist at the
University of California at Irvine, says, “An increasing number of findings support the theory that the brain is special-
3
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
ized for the building blocks of music” (Weinberger 1995, 6).
Wilson, a biologist, goes even farther as he states that “all of
us have a biologic guarantee of musicianship, the capacity to
respond to and participate in the music of our environment”
(cited in Hodges 2000, 18).
Sousa (2006) forwards that there are four proofs that sup-
port the biological basis for music: (1) it is universal (past–
present, all cultures) (Swain 1997); (2) it reveals itself early
in life (infants three months old can learn and remember to
move an overhead crib mobile when a song is played [Fagan
et al. 1997], and within a few months can recognize melodies
and tones [Weinberger 2004; Hannon and Johnson 2005]);
(3) it should exist in other animals besides humans (mon-
keys can form musical abstractions) (Sousa 2006); and (4) we
might expect the brain to have specialized areas for music.
Exactly where this hardwiring might be located would
be difficult to say. For example, even though there is an area
in adults identified as the auditory cortex, visual information
goes into the auditory cortex, just as auditory information
goes into the visual cortex. That is why certain types of music
can stimulate memory recall and visual imagery (Nakamura et
al. 1999). Further, the auditory cortex is not inherently different from the visual cortex. Thus, “Brain specialization is not
a function of anatomy or dictated by genes. It is a result of experience” (Begley 2007, 108). This process of specialization
through experience begins shortly after the time of conception—selecting and connecting. Many of the interconnec-
tions remain into adulthood, or perhaps throughout life. While these connections are not exercised in most adults—they
are more like back-road connections—when the brain is deprived of one sense (for example, hearing or seeing), a radi-
cal reorganization occurs in the cortex, and connections that heretofore lay dormant are used to expand the remaining
senses (Begley 2007).
In the early phases of neuronal growth (during the first few months of life), there is an explosion of synapses in
preparation for learning (Edelman 1992). Yet beginning around the age of eight months through sixteen months, tens
of billions of synapses in the auditory and visual cortices are lost (Zull 2002). Chugani (1998) says that this explosion is
concurrent with synaptic death, with experiences determining which synapses live or die. As Zull explains, before eight
months of age synapses are being formed faster than they are being lost. Then things shift, and we begin to lose more
synapses than we create (Zull 2002). The brain is sculpting itself through interaction with its environment, with the reac-
tions of the brain determining its own architecture.
This process of selection continues as the rest of life is played out. This is the process of learning, selecting, connect-
ing, and changing our neuronal patterns (Edelman 1992; Zull 2002). Music plays a core role in this process. Jensen con-
tends that “music can actually prime the brain’s neural pathways” (2000b, 246).
The brain has the capacity to structurally change throughout life. As Begley describes, “The actions we take can
literally expand or contract different regions of the brain, pour more juice into quiet circuits and damp down activity in
buzzing ones” (Begley 2007, 8). During this process of plasticity, the brain is expanding areas for functions used more
frequently and shrinking areas devoted to activities that are rarely performed.
Further, in the late 1990s neuroscientific researchers discovered that the structure of the brain can change as a result
of the thoughts we have. As Dobbs explains, the neurons that are scattered throughout key parts of the brain “fire not
only as we perform a certain action, but also when we watch someone else perform that action” (Dobbs 2007, 22). These
are mirror neurons, a form of mimicry that bypasses cognition, transferring actions, behaviors, and most likely other
cultural norms quickly and efficiently. Thus when we see something being enacted, our mind creates the same patterns
that we would use to enact that “something” ourselves. Because people have stored representations of songs and sounds
in their long-term memory, music can be imagined. When a tune is moving through your mind it is activating the same
cells as if you were hearing it from the outside world. Further, as we have noted, when you are internally imagining a
The actions we take
can literally expand or
contract different regions
of the brain, pour more
juice into quiet circuits
and damp down activity
in buzzing ones.
4
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
tune, the visual cortex is also stimulated such that visual patterns are occurring as well (Sousa 2006).
Not all of these findings were known when music and acoustic pioneer Alfred Tomatis (1983) forwarded the analogy
that sound provided an electrical charge to energize the brain. He described cells in the cortex of the brain as acting like
small batteries, generating the electricity viewed in an EEG printout. What he discovered that was amazing was that
these batteries were not charged by the metabolism, but rather through sound from an external source. With the dis-
covery of mirror neurons, this would mean that imagining tunes is also providing a charge. These early Tomatis studies
found that sound impacted posture, energy flow, attitude, and muscle tone, and that the greatest impact was in the 8000-
hertz frequency range (Tomatis 1983; Jensen 2000b). Other research took this further, suggesting that low-frequency
tones caused a discharge of mental and physical energy and certain higher tones powered up the brain (Clynes 1982;
Zatorre 1997).
Researcher Frances Rauscher (1997) contends that music appreciation and abstract reasoning have the same neural
firing patterns; however, this was observed in research that occurred several years after her earlier studies introducing the
controversial Mozart effect and setting in motion a growing interest in the relationship of music and learning.
The Mozart effect
The Mozart effect emerged in 1993 with a brief paper published in Nature by Frances Rauscher, Gordon Shaw, and
Katherine Ky. To discover whether a brief exposure to certain music increased cognitive ability, the researchers divided
thirty-six college students into three groups and used standard intelligence subtests to measure spatial/temporal reason-
ing. Spatial/temporal reasoning is considered “the ability to form mental images from physical objects, or to see patterns
in time and space” (Sousa 2006, 224). During the subtests one group worked in silence, one group listened to a tape of
relaxation instructions, and the third group listened to a Mozart piano sonata (specifically, Mozart’s Sonata for Two
Pianos in D Major). There were significantly higher results in the Mozart group, although the effect was brief, lasting
only ten to fifteen minutes (Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky 1993).
The Mozart effect quickly became a meme, taking on a life of its own completely out of the context of the findings.
Perhaps this was because it was the first study relating music and spatial reasoning, suggesting that listening to music
actually increased brain performance. There ensued high media coverage with the emphasis placed on the most sensa-
tional findings. The details of the study, however—specifically, that these findings were limited to spatial reasoning, not
general intelligence, and that the effect was short-lived (ten to fifteen minutes)—were not part of the meme.
In 1994, Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky performed a follow-on study that was more extensive than the first. This five-day
study involved seventy-nine college students who were pretested for their level of spatial/temporal reasoning prior to
three listening experiences and then posttested. While it was found that all students benefited (again, for a short period
of time), the greatest benefits accrued to those students who had tested the lowest on spatial/temporal reasoning at the
beginning of the experiment (Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky 1995).
By now, other groups were exploring the Mozart effect. The results were similar to the earlier results, again, for a
short period of time (Rideout and Laubach 1996; Rideout and Taylor 1997; Rideout, Dougherty, and Wernert 1998;
Wilson and Brown 1997). A series of similar studies with slightly different approaches, however, demonstrated no rel-
evant differences between the group listening to Mozart and the control group (Steele, Brown, and Stoecker 1999a,
1999b; Chabris 1999). Still another study began with the premise that the complex melodic variations in Mozart’s sonata
provided greater stimulation to the prefrontal cortex than simpler music. When this theory was tested it was discovered
that the Mozart sonata activated the auditory as well as the prefrontal cortex in all of the subjects, thus suggesting a
neurological basis for the Mozart effect (Muftuler et al. 1999). Other specific case results were emerging. For example,
Johnson et al. (1998) reported improvement in spatial-temporal reasoning in an Alzheimer’s patient; and Hughes, Fino,
and Melyn (1999) reported that a Mozart sonata reduced brain seizures.
As the exaggerated sensation of the initial finding began to sink into disillusionment, other researchers were build-
ing more understanding of the effect. For example, it was determined that while listening to Mozart before testing might
improve spatial/temporal reasoning, listening to Mozart during testing could cause neural competition through interfer-
ence with the brain’s neural firing patterns (Felix 1993). Studies expanded to include other musical pieces. Researchers
at the University of Texas Imaging Center in San Antonio discovered that “other subsets of music actually helped the
experimental subjects do far better than did listening to Mozart” (Jensen 2000b, 247). Thus it was determined that the
effect was not caused by the specific music of Mozart as much as the rhythms, tones, or patterns of Mozart’s music that
5
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
enhanced learning (Jensen 2000b). This is consistent with earlier work by researcher King (1991), who suggested that
there is no statistically significant difference between New Age music and baroque music in the effectiveness of induc-
ing alpha states for learning (approximately 8–13 Hz), that is, they both enhance learning. Georgi Lozanov, a pioneer of
accelerated learning, however, had said that classical and romantic music (circa 1750–1825 and 1820–1900, respectively)
provided a better background for introducing new information (Lozanov 1991), and Clynes (1982) had recognized a
greater consistency in body pulse response to classical music than rock music, which means that the response to classical
music was more predictable.
Considering the exaggerated early claims, publicized without context and based on highly situation-dependent and
context-sensitive studies, and the differences in findings among various research groups, it is easy to understand why the
Mozart effect has proved so controversial. Note that the Mozart Effect emerged from studies involving adults (not chil-
dren) and that it involved short periods of listening to specific music and doing specific subtasks to measure spatial/tem-
poral reasoning. In these studies, effects from long-term listening were not studied or assessed, nor was the richer long-
term involvement of learning and playing music. This brings us to a discussion of transfer effects.
Transfer effects
The question of if and how music improves the mind is often couched as a question of transfer effects. This refers to
the transfer of learning that occurs when improvement of one cognitive ability or motor skill is facilitated by prior learn-
ing or practice in another area (Weinberger 1999). For example, riding a bike, often used to represent embodied tacit
knowledge (Bennet and Bennet 2008), is a motor skill (in descriptive terms, learning to maintain balance while moving
forward) that can facilitate learning to skate or ski.
In cognitive and brain sciences the transfer of learning is a fundamental issue. While it has been argued that simply
using a brain region for one activity does not necessarily increase competence in other skills or activities based in the
same region (Coch, Fischer, and Dawson 2007), with our recent understanding of the power of thought patterns, one
discipline is not completely independent of another (Hetland 2000). For example, a melody can act as a vehicle for a
powerful communication transfer at both the conscious and nonconscious levels ( Jensen 2000b). Thus, “Music acts as a
premium signal carrier, whose rhythms, patterns, contrasts, and varying tonalities encode any new information” (Webb
and Webb 1990). By “encode” is meant to facilitate remembering. An example is the “Alphabet Song” sung to the tune of
“Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.”
There are different spectral types of real sounds coming from a myriad of sources. Periodic sounds that give a strong
sense of pitch are harmonic (sung vowels, trumpets, flutes); those that have a weak or ambiguous sense of pitch are
inharmonic (bells, gongs, some drums); and sound that has a sense of high or low but no clear sense of pitch is noise
(consonants, some percussion instruments, and initial attacks of both harmonic and inharmonic sounds) (Soundlab
2005). Specific sounds we hear may include different spectral types; music often includes all three. For example, when
hearing a church soloist, the noise of a strong consonant is followed by a sung vowel (harmonic). It is also noteworthy
that the same part of the brain that hears pitch (the temporal lobe) is also involved in understanding speech (Amen 2005).
Thus, specific combinations of sound may carry specific meaning by triggering memories or feelings whether or not they
have words connected to them.
Research findings indicate that music actually increases certain brain functions that improve other cognitive tasks.
Perhaps one of the most stunning results in the literature was achieved by a professional musician in North Carolina
who was music director of the Winston-Salem Piedmont Triad Symphony Orchestra. The music director arranged for a
woodwind quintet to play two or three half-hour programs per week at a local elementary school for three years: the first
year playing for all first graders; the second year playing for all first and second graders; and the third year playing for all
first, second, and third graders. Note that 70 percent of the students at the elementary school received free or reduced-
price lunches. Prior to the study, first through fifth graders had an average composite IQ score of 92, and more than 60
percent of third graders tested below their grade level. Three years into the program, testing of the third graders exposed
to the quintet music for three years showed remarkable differences, with 85 percent of this group testing above grade level
for reading and 89 percent testing above grade level for math (Campbell 2000).
The limbic system and subcortical region of the brain—the part of the brain involved in long-term memory—are
engaged in musical and emotional responses. When information is tied to music, therefore, it has a better chance of
being encoded in long-term memory (Jensen 2000b). Context-dependent memory connected to music is not a new idea.
6
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
In a study at Texas A&M University examining the role of background instrumental music in memory, music turned
out to be an important contextual element. Subjects had the best recall when music was played during learning and that
same music was played during recall (Godden and Baddeley 1975). This was confirmed in a 1993 study monitoring cor-
tical and verbal responses to harmonic and melodic intervals in adults knowledgeable in music. The results showed con-
sistent brain responses to intervals, whether isolated harmonic intervals, pairs of melodic intervals, or pairs of harmonic
intervals. These results indicated that intervals may be viewed as meaningful words (Cohen et al. 1993).
It has also been found that background music enhances the efficiency of individuals who work with their hands. For
example, in a study of surgeons it was found that background music increased their alertness and concentration (Restak
2003). The music that surgeons said worked best was not “easy-listening”; rather, that music was (in order of preference):
Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, Beethoven’s Violin Concerto Op. 61, Bach’s Brandenburg concertos, and Wagner’s “Ride of the
Valkyries.” The use of background music during surgery did not cause interference and competition, since music and
skilled manual activities activate different parts of the brain (Restak 2003). This, of course, is similar to the use of back-
ground music in the classroom or in places of work.
Dowling, a music researcher, believes that music learning affects other learning for different reasons. Building on
the concepts of declarative memory and procedural memory, he says that music combines mind and body processes into
one experience. For example, by integrating mental activities and sensory-motor experiences (like moving, singing, or
participating rhythmically in the acquisition of new information, and for our doctors in the example above, their hand
movements) learning occurs “on a much more sophisticated and profound level” (Campbell 2000, 173). Conversely, it
has also been found that stimulating music can serve as a distraction and interfere with cognitive performance (Hallam
2002). Thus, much as determined in the early Mozart studies, different types of music produce different effects in different
people in regard to learning.
The right and left hemispheres of the brain
The human brain is divided into two hemispheres, simply referred to as the right and left hemispheres. It was previ-
ously believed that the right hemisphere was the seat of music, but today we know that both sides of the brain are used
to listen to music (Amen 2005). Music engages the whole brain ( Jensen 2000b). For example, as sound enters the ears
it goes to the auditory cortex in the temporal lobes. The temporal lobe in the nondominant hemisphere (generally the
right hemisphere) hears pitch, melody, harmony, and beat and (recognizing long-term patterns) puts this together as
a whole piece. The temporal lobe in the dominant hemisphere (generally the left hemisphere) is better at analyzing
the incoming sound and hearing the short-term signatures of music, that is, lyrics and changes in rhythm (pacing), fre-
quency, intensity, and harmonies (Amen 2005; Jensen 2000b; Weinberger 1995). The frontal lobe associates the sound
with thought and stimulates emotions (in the limbic system) and past experiences (from memory scattered all over the
brain) (Sousa 2006), and the cerebellum becomes involved in measuring the beats (spatial aspects) (Jensen 2000b). For
example, while a non-musician would process music primarily in the right hemisphere (with potential strong contribu-
tions from the limbic system stimulated by the frontal lobe), a musician who was analyzing the content of a musical form
would tend to hear music with his left hemisphere (Amen 2005) with a heavy dose of the cerebellum thrown in (Jensen
2000b).
Using PET scans, Eric Jensen, an educator known for his translation of neuroscience, has identified the various
brain regions activated by different aspects of music. For example, rhythm activates Broca’s area as well as the cerebel-
lum; melody activates both hemispheres (with a specific recognized melody activating the right hemisphere); harmony
activates the left hemisphere more than the right as well as the inferior temporal cortex; pitch activates the left back of
the brain and may also activate the right auditory cortex; and timbre activates the right hemisphere ( Jensen 2000b).
Further, activation of various parts of the brain is highly dependent on which senses are involved: aural (hearing
music), sight (reading music), or touch (playing music). Other events, such as hearing a story about the Mozart effect,
recalling a Rolling Stones concert, or having an emotional response to certain music, are processed differently in the
brain (Jensen 2002). In other words, the experience and thought related to music is spatially diffused throughout the
brain. While there are many studies on the connections between music and emotion and between emotion and learning,
these are outside the focus of this paper.
As Robert Zatorre, a neuropsychologist at the Montreal Neurological Institute forwards, there is little doubt that
7
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
music engages the entire brain. Further, as music has shifted over the last hundred years from baroque or classical
(stimulating our nondominant hemisphere) to more avant-garde styles (stimulating our dominant hemisphere), it has
engaged the brain even more fully (Zatorre 1997).
Impact of musical instruction
Substantiating the long-held “knowing” that music is beneficial to human beings, Hodges outlines five basic prem-
ises that establish a link between the human brain and the ability to learn. The first two confirm our earlier discussion of
the brain as being hardwired for—or at least having a proclivity for—music. The latter three are pertinent to our forth-
coming discussion of the impact of musical instruction on the learning mind/brain. As Hodges forwards (with some
paraphrasing): (1) the human brain has the ability to respond to and participate in music; (2) the musical brain operates
at birth and persists throughout life; (3) early and ongoing musical training affects the organization of the musical brain;
(4) the musical brain consists of extensive neural systems involving widely distributed, but locally specialized, regions of
the brain; and (5) the musical brain is highly resilient (Hodges 2000, 18).
There are hundreds of studies that confirm that creating music and playing music, especially when started at an early
age, provide many more cerebral advantages than listening to music. In a study involving ninety boys between the ages
of six and fifteen, it was discovered that musically trained students had better verbal memory (but showed no differences
in visual memory). Thus musical training appeared to improve the ability of the Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas to handle
verbal learning. Further, the memory benefits appeared long lasting. When students who dropped out of music training
were tested a year later, it was found that they had retained the verbal memory advantage gained while in music training
(Ho, Cheung, and Chan 2003).
Music and mathematics are closely related in brain activity (Abeles and Sanders 2005; Catterall, Chapleau,
and Iwanga 1999; Graziano, Peterson, and Shaw 1999; Kay 2000; Schmithhorst and Holland 2004; Vaughn 2000).
Mathematical concepts basic to music include patterns, counting, geometry, rations and proportions, equivalent frac-
tions, and sequences (Sousa 2006). For example, musicians learn to recognize patterns of chords, notes, and key changes
to create and vary melodies, and by inverting those patterns they create counterpoint, forming different kinds of har-
monies. As further examples, musical beats and rests are counted, instrument finger positions form geometrical shapes,
reading music requires an understanding of ratios and proportions (duration and relativity of notes), and a musical inter-
val (sequence) is the difference between two frequencies (known as the beat frequency) (Sousa 2006).
In the brain, music is stored in a pitch-invariant form, that is, the important relationships (patterns) in the song are
stored, not the actual notes. This can be demonstrated by an individual’s ability to recognize a melody regardless of the
key in which it is played (with different notes being played than those stored in memory). As Hawkins and Blakeslee
detail,
This means that each rendition of the “same” melody in a new key is actually an entirely different sequence of
notes! Each rendition stimulates an entirely different set of locations on your cochlea, causing an entirely dif-
ferent set of spatial-temporal patterns to stream up into your auditory cortex ... and yet you perceive the same
melody in each case (Hawkins and Blakeslee 2004, 80–81).
Unless you have perfect pitch, it is difficult to differentiate the two different keys. This means that—similar to other
thought patterns—the natural approach to music storage, recall, and recognition occurs at the level of invariant forms.
Invariant form refers to the brain’s internal representation of an external form. This representation does not change even
though the stimuli informing you it’s there are in a constant state of flux (Hawkins and Blakeslee 2004).
A 1993 study at the University of Vienna revealed the extent to which different regions of the human brain cooper-
ate when composing music (this also occurred in some listeners). Professor Hellmuth Petsche and his associates deter-
mined that brain-wave coherence occurred at many sites throughout the cerebral cortex (Petsche 1993). For some forms
of music, the correlation between the left and right frontal lobes increases, that is, brain waves become more similar
between the frontal lobes of the two hemispheres (Tatsuya, Mitsuo, and Tadao 1997). For example, in a study involving
exposure of four-year-old children to one hour of music per day over a six-month period, brain bioelectric activity data
indicated an enhancement of the coherence function (Flohr, Miller, and DeBeus 2000).
In a study of the relationship of coherence and degree of musical training, subjects with music training exhibited
significantly more EEG coherence within and between hemispheres than those without such training in a control group
8
Next Page
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
(Johnson et al. 1996).2 In other words, it appeared musical training increased the number of functional interconnec-
tions in the brain. Specifically, the researchers suggested that greater coherence in musicians “may reflect a specialized
organization of brain activity in subjects with music training for enabling the experiences of ordered acoustic patterns”
(Johnson et al. 1996, 582).
Further, in a study of thirty professional classical musicians and thirty non-musician controls matched for age, sex,
and handedness, MRI scans revealed that there was a positive relationship between corpus callosum size and the number
of fibers crossing through it, indicating a difference in interhemispheric communication between musicians and controls
(Schlaug et al. 1995; Springer and Deutsch 1997). In other words, the two hemispheres of the brains of the musicians
had a larger number of connections than those of the control group. Thus, as Jensen confirms, “Music ... may be a valu-
able tool for the integration of thinking across both brain hemispheres” ( Jensen 2000b, 246). And as summed up by
Thompson, brain function is enhanced through increased cross-callosal communication between the two hemispheres of
the brain (Thompson 2007).
Musicians have structural changes that are “profound and seemingly permanent” (Sousa 2006, 224). As Sousa
describes, “the auditory cortex, the motor cortex, the cerebellum, and the corpus callosum are larger in musicians than
in non-musicians” (2006, 224). This, of course, moves beyond being able to discern different tonal and visual patterns
to acquiring new motor skills. Since the brains of musicians and non-musicians are structurally different—yet studies
of five- to seven-year-olds beginning music lessons show no preexisting differences (Restak 2003; Sousa 2006; Norton
et al. 2005)—it appears that most musicians are made, not born. An example is perfect pitch, the ability to name indi-
vidual tones. Perfect pitch is not an inherited phenomenon. Restak (2003) discovered that perfect pitch can be acquired
by average children between three and five years of age when given appropriate training. Structural brain changes occur
along with the development of perfect pitch and continue as musical talent matures (Restak 2003).
We have now answered two of our introductory questions: listening to music regularly (along with replaying tunes
in our brains) helps keep our neurons and synapses active and alive; listening to the right music does appear to facilitate
learning; further, participating more fully in music making appears to provide additional cerebral advantages. But, as
we will discover, some music offers an even greater opportunity to heighten our conscious awareness in terms of sensory
inputs, expand our awareness of, and access to, that which we have gathered and stored in our unconscious, and grow
and expand our mental capacity and capabilities.
Since music has its own frequencies, it can either resonate or be in conflict with the body’s rhythms. The pulse (heart-
beat) of the listener tends to synchronize with the beat of the music being heard (the faster the music, the faster the
heartbeat). When this resonance occurs, the individual learns better. As Jensen confirms, “When both are resonating on
the same frequency, we fall ‘in sync,’ we learn better, and we’re more aware and alert” (Jensen 2000b). This is a starting
point for further exploring brain coherence.
Hemispheric synchronization
Hemispheric synchronization is the use of sound coupled with a binaural beat to bring both hemispheres of the brain
into unison (Bennet and Bennet 2007). Binaural beats were identified in 1839 by H. W. Dove, a German experimenter.
In the human mind, binaural beats are detected with carrier tones (audio tones of slightly different frequencies, one to
each ear) below approximately 1500 Hz (Oster 1973). The mind perceives the frequency differences of the sound coming
into each ear, mixing the two sounds to produce a fluctuating rhythm and thereby creating a beat or difference frequen-
cy. Because each side of the body sends signals to the opposite hemisphere of the brain, both hemispheres must work
together to “hear” the difference frequency.
This perceived rhythm originates in the brain stem (Oster 1973) and is neurologically routed to the reticular forma-
tion (Swann et al. 1982), then moves to the cortex where it can be measured as a frequency-following response (Hink
et al. 1980; Marsh, Brown, and Smith 1975; Smith et al. 1978). This interhemispheric communication is the setting for
brain-wave coherence, which facilitates whole-brain cognition (Ritchey 2003), that is, an integration of left- and right-
brain functioning (Carroll 1986).
What can occur during hemispheric synchronization is a physiologically reduced state of arousal while maintaining
conscious awareness (Atwater 2004; Fischer 1971; Delmonte 1984; Goleman 1988; Jevning, Wallace, and Beidenbach
1992; Mavromatis 1991; West 1980) and the capacity to reach the unconscious creative state described above through
Next Page
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
9
the window of consciousness. In an exploration of tacit knowledge published in VINE at the beginning of 2008, the
authors introduced the use of sound as an approach to accessing tacit knowledge. For example, listening to a special song
in your life can draw out deep feelings and memories buried in your unconscious. Further, interhemispheric communica-
tion was introduced as a setting for achieving brain-wave coherence (a doorway into the unconscious), providing greater
access to knowledge (informing) and knowledge (proceeding), thereby facilitating learning (Bennet and Bennet 2008).
By reference the ideas forwarded in that work are included here.
In 1971 Robert Monroe—an engineer, founder of The Monroe Institute,® and arguably the leading pioneer of
achieving learning through expanded forms of consciousness—developed audiotapes with specific beat frequencies that
support synchronized, rhythmic patterns of consciousness called Hemi-Sync®. Repeated experiments occurred with
individual brain activity observed. The following correlations between brain waves and consciousness were used: beta
waves (approximately 13–26 Hz) and focused alertness and increased analytical capabilities; alpha waves (approximately
8–13 Hz) and unfocused alertness; theta waves (approximately 4–8 Hz) and a deep relaxation; and delta waves (approxi-
mately 0.5–4 Hz) and deep sleep. While it was discovered that theta waves provided the best learning state and beta
waves the best problem-solving state, this posed a problem. Theta is the state of short duration right before and right
after sleep (Monroe Institute 1985). This problem was solved by superimposing a beta signal on the theta, which pro-
duced a relaxed alertness (Bullard 2003).
This is consistent with the findings from neurobiological research that efficient learning is related to a decrease
in brain activation often accompanied by a shift of activation from the prefrontal regions to those regions relevant to the
processing of particular tasks (the phenomenon known as the anterior-posterior shift).
The first METAMUSIC® to combine theta and beta waves (Remembrance by J. S. Epperson) was released in 1994
(Bullard 2003). A second METAMUSIC piece combining theta and beta waves, released that same year (Einstein’s Dream,
also by Epperson), was based on a modification of Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, the same piece used in
the initial study which produced the controversial Mozart effect. This version, however, had embedded combinations
of sounds to encourage whole-brain coherence.
Thus Robert Monroe was developing and releasing audiotapes (and then CDs) specifically designed to help the left
and right hemispheres of the brain work together, resulting in increased concentration, learning, and memory ( Jensen
2000b). While the range and number of similar music products has expanded over the past years, the many years of both
scientific and anecdotal evidence available about the use of Hemi-Sync provides a plethora of material from which to
explore the benefits of brain coherence as it relates to learning. Thus we will briefly explore the context around this tech-
nology.
The Hemi-Sync3 experience
There are dozens of recorded studies dated during the 1980s that looked at the relationship of Hemi-Sync and learn-
ing, some specifically focused on educational applications. In 1982, for example, students in the basic broadcasters’ course
(BBC) of the Defense Information School (DINFOS) at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, “displayed a number of posi-
tive differences in stress reactions and performance responses” over the control groups (Waldkoetter 1991). In a general
psychology class, Edrington (1983) discovered that students who listened to verbal information (definitions and terms
peculiar to the field of psychology) with a Hemi-Sync background signal (4 ± .2 Hz) scored significantly higher than the
control group on five of six tests.
In 1986, Dr. Gregory Carroll presented the results of a study on the effectiveness of hemispheric synchronization of
the brain as a learning tool in the identification of musical intervals. While the results of the experimental group were
5.54 percent higher than the control group, this was not considered significant. A surprise finding, however, was that
individuals in the experimental group had a tendency to achieve higher scores on their posttests than on their pretests.
The effect was in both the number of individuals and the amount of individual change. Only 28 percent of the individual
responses in the control group posttests were higher than their pretests, while 54 percent of the experimental group did
much better (Carroll, 1986). This suggests that Hemi-Sync signals sustained their levels of concentration during the
course of the forty-minute tape sessions considerably longer than what occurred (when it occurred) in the Mozart effect
studies.
Next Page
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
10
Hemi-Sync has consistently proven effective in improving enriched learning environments through sensory inte-
gration (Morris 1990), enhanced memory (Kennerly 1996), and improved creativity (Hiew 1995) as well as increas-
ing concentration and focus (Atwater 2004; Bullard 2003). There is also a large body of observational research. For
example, after fourteen years of using music as part of his practice, medical doctor Brian Dailey found that the use of
sound (specifically, Hemi-Sync) not only had a therapeutic effect for his patients with a variety of illnesses, but could
be extremely effective in assisting healthy individuals with concentration, insight, intuition, creativity, and meditation
(Mason 2004). This short review has not included the many studies specifically addressing the impact of music, and
in particular Hemi-Sync, on patients with brain damage or learning disorders, which is outside the focus of this paper.
In a recent study on the benefits of long-term participation in The Monroe Institute programs4 involving more
than seven hundred self-selected participants,5 it was shown that greater experience with Hemi-Sync increased self-
efficacy and life satisfaction (Danielson 2008) at a state of development similar to that of self-transforming (Kegan
1982). As described in the research results,
Individuals at this stage of development recognize the limitations in any perspective and more willingly
engage others for the challenge it poses to their worldview as the means for growing more expansive in their
experiences—to consciously grow beyond where they are rather than merely having it happen to them as a
function of circumstances (Danielson 2008, 25).
The seven hundred study participants (all adults) were evenly divided between single-program participation
(SPP) and multiple-program participation (MPP) (indicating increased usage over a longer period of time). SPP
means one week of continuous emersion using Hemi-Sync technology; MPP means multiple weeks of continuous
emersion, separated by time periods ranging from weeks to years. Following their Hemi-Sync experiences, partici-
pants reported remarkable results. For example, the following percentages of participants strongly agreed (on a five-
point Likert scale) to the following statements:
“I have a more expansive vision of how the parts of my life relate to a whole” (25.29% SPP, 61.3% MPP)
“I am actively involved in my own personal development” (30.65% SPP, 62.45% MPP)
“I take actions that are more true to my sense of self ” (18.77% SPP, 45.21% MPP)
“I have been able to resolve an important issue or challenge in my life” (11.88% SPP, 32.57% MPP)
“I am more productive at work” (4.6% SPP, 14.18% MPP)
“I have a clear sense of further development I need to accomplish” (29.5% SPP, 40.23% MPP)
“I am more successful in my career” (6.56% SPP, 17.97% MPP)
Clearly, Hemi-Sync supports a long-term development program for “those interested in playing on the boundar-
ies of human growth and development ... who want to see positive change in their lives” (Danielson 2008, 25).
Final thoughts
At a dozen places on the Internet, neurologist Jerre Levy of the University of Chicago6 is credited with saying
(paraphrased) that great men and women of history do not merely have superior intellectual capacities within each
hemisphere of the brain. They also have phenomenal levels of emotional commitment, motivation, and attentional
capacity, all of which reflect the highly integrated brain in action.
As we have seen, for the past thirty years, and perhaps longer, there have been studies in the mainstream tout-
ing the connections between music and mind/brain activity (from the viewpoints of psychology, music, education,
etc.), and another expanding set of studies not as mainstream (from the viewpoint of consciousness). As our thought
and understanding as a species is expanding, these areas of focus are openly acknowledging each other and learning
together. It is no longer necessary or desirable to limit our thoughts to one frame of reference, nor to place boundaries
on our mental capacity and ability to expand or contract that capacity.
We have seen evidence that changes in brain organization and function occur with the acquisition of musical
skills. From the external viewpoint, whether as a listener or participant, music clearly offers the potential to strength-
en and increase the interconnections across the hemispheres of the brain. As an example, the sound technology of
Hemi-Sync offers the potential to achieve brain coherence, thus facilitating whole-brain cognition.
This is not to say that sound—music, Mozart, or Hemi-Sync—offers a panacea for learning. Let’s not produce
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
11
the disappointment of creating a meme without context. When asked what to expect from the Hemi-Sync experience,
engineer and developer Robert Monroe responded,
As much or as little as you put into it. Some discover themselves and thus live more completely, more construc-
tively. Others reach levels of awareness so profound that one such experience is enough for a lifetime. Still others
become seekers-after-truth and add an on-going adventure to their daily activity (Monroe 2007).
We’ve come full circle. Learning is occurring in the mind/brain as long as there is life; this is part of the inheritance of
Darwinian survival of the fittest. But the amount, quality, and direction of that learning, and the environments in which
we live, are choices. Yes, Charles Darwin, regularly listening to music—and, even better, participating in music mak-
ing—would have undoubtedly kept more neurons alive and active, and synapses intact.
Now our opportunity is to fully exploit this understanding in our organizations, in our communities, and in our
everyday lives.
Notes
1 The terms coherence and entrainment are often interchanged. Entrainment, however, is used to describe a form of
coherence achieved when two or more body systems are synchronous and operating at the same frequency. For example,
at HeartMath® the term entrainment is used to describe this relationship between the respiration and heart-rhythm pat-
terns.
2 It was also found that females had higher coherence than males, which is in accord with anatomical studies show-
ing that females have a larger number of interhemispheric connections than males.
3 While used as a short term for hemispheric synchronization, Hemi-Sync is also the term patented by Robert
Monroe to describe the Hemi-Sync auditory-guidance system, a binaural-beat sound technology that has demonstrated
changes in focused states of consciousness in over thirty years of study.
4 “The Benefits of long-term participation in the Monroe Institute programs” was released in early 2008 by The
Monroe Institute.
5 More than twenty thousand people worldwide have participated in formal Hemi-Sync programs at the Institute.
An equivalent number of people have participated in OUTREACH programs, which are conducted in English, Spanish,
French, German, and Japanese.
6 Levy is a strong debunker of the left brain/right brain myth (Levy 1985).
References
Abeles, H. F., and E. M. Sanders. 2005. Final assessment report: New Jersey Symphony Orchestra’s Early Strings
Program. New York: Center for Arts Education Research, Columbia University.
Amen, D. G. 2005. Making a good brain great. New York: Harmony Books.
Atwater, F. H. 2004. The Hemi-Sync process. Faber, VA: The Monroe Institute.
Begley, S. 2007. Train your mind, change your brain. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bennet, A., and D. Bennet. 2000. Knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities: Moving from
research to action. Frost, WV: MQI Press.
Bennet, D., and A. Bennet. 2008. Engaging tacit knowledge in support of organizational learning. VINE 38
(1): 72–94.
Bullard, B. 2003. METAMUSIC: Music for inner space, Hemi-Sync Journal 21 (3–4): 1–5.
Campbell, D. 2000. Heal yourself with sound and music. Boulder, CO: Sounds True.
Carroll, G. D. 1986. Brain hemisphere synchronization and musical learning. Unpublished paper. University
of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Catterall, J., R. Chapleau, and J. Iwanga. 1999. Involvement in the arts and human development: Extending
an analysis of general associations and introducing the special cases of intense involvement in music and in theater arts.
Monograph Series No. 11. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
Chabris, C. 1999. A quantitative meta-analysis of Mozart studies. Nature 400:826–27.
Chugani, H. T. 1998. Biological basis of emotion: Brain systems and brain development. Pediatrics 102 (5):
1225–29.
Clynes, M., ed. 1982. Music, mind, and brain. New York: Plenum Press.
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
12
Coch, D., K. W. Fischer, and G. Dawson, eds. 2007. Human behavior, learning, and the developing brain:
Typical development. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cohen, D., R. Granot, H. Pratt, and A. Barneah. 1993. Cognitive meanings of musical elements as disclosed
by event-related potential (ERP) and verbal experiments. Music Perception 5 (11): 153–84.
Danielson, C. 2008. Final report: The benefits of long-term participation in The Monroe Institute programs.
Faber, VA: The Monroe Institute. See http://www.monroeinstitute.org/journal/the-benefits-of-long-term-par-
ticipation-in-tmi-programs/
Delmonte, M. M. 1984. Electrocortical activity and related phenomena associated with meditation practice:
A literature review. International Journal of Neuroscience 24:217–31.
Dobbs, D. 2007. Turning off depression. In Best of the brain from Scientific American: Mind, matter, and
tomorrow’s brain, ed. F. E. Bloom. New York: Dana Press.
Edelman, G. 1992. Bright air, brilliant fire. New York: Basic Books.
Edrington, D. 1983. Hypermnesia experiment. Breakthrough, September. Faber, VA: The Monroe Institute of
Applied Sciences.
Fagan, J., J. Prigot, M. Carroll, L. Pioli, A. Stein, and A. Franco. 1997. Auditory context and memory
retrieval in young infants. Child Development 68:1057–66.
Felix, U. 1993. The contribution of background music to the enhancement of learning in Suggestopedia: A
critical review of the literature. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching 18 (3–4): 277–303.
Fischer, R. 1971. A cartography of ecstatic and meditative states. Science 174 (4012): 897–904.
Flohr, J., D. Miller, and R. DeBeus. 2000. EEG studies with young children. Music Educators Journal 87 (2):
28–32.
Godden, D. R., and A. D. Baddeley. 1975. Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On
land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology 66:325–31.
Goleman, G. M. 1988. The meditative mind: The varieties of meditative experience. New York: G. P. Putnam.
Graziano, A. B., M. Peterson, and G. L. Shaw. 1999. Enhanced learning of proportional math through music
training and spatial-temporal training. Neurological Research 21:139–52.
Hallom, S. 2002. The effects of background music on studying. Pp. 74-75 in Critical links: Learning in the arts
and student academic and social development, ed. R. J. Deasy. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
Hannon, E. E., and S. P. Johnson. 2005. Infants use meter to categorize rhythms and melodies: Implications
for musical structure learning. Cognitive Psychology 50:354–77.
Hawkins, J., with S. Blakeslee. 2004. On intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the cre-
ation of truly intelligent machines. New York: Times Books.
Hetland, L. 2000. Listening to music enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: Evidence for the “Mozart Effect.”
Journal of Aesthetic Education 34:105–48.
Hiew, C. C. 1995. Hemi-Sync into creativity. Hemi-Sync Journal 13 (1): 3–5.
Hink, R. F., K. Kodera, O. Yamada, K. Kaga, and J. Suzuki. 1980. Binaural interaction of a beating frequen-
cy-following response. Audiology 19 (1): 36–43.
Ho, Y-C., M-C. Cheung, and A. S. Chan. 2003. Music training improves verbal but not visual memory:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations in children. Neuropsychology 17:439–50.
Hodges, D. 2000. Implications of music and brain research. Music Educators Journal 87 (2): 17–22.
Hughes, J. R., J. J. Fino, and M. A. Melyn. 1999. Is there a chronic change of the “Mozart effect” on epilepti-
form activity? A case study. Clinical Electroencephalography 30:44–45.
Jensen, E. 2000b. Brain-based learning: The new science of teaching and training. San Diego, CA: The Brain
Store.
Jensen, E. 2002. Environments for learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jevning, R., R. K. Wallace, and M. Beidenbach. 1992. The physiology of meditation: A review. Neuroscience
and Behavioral Reviews 16:415–24.
Johnson, J. D., C. W. Cotman, C. S. Tasaki, and G. L. Shaw. 1998. Enhancement of spatial-temporal rea-
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
13
soning after a Mozart listening condition in Alzheimer’s disease: A case study. Neurology Research 20:666–72.
Johnson, J. K., H. Petsche, P. Richter, A. Von Stein, and O. Filz. 1996. The dependence of coherence esti-
mates of spontaneous EEG on gender and music training. Music Perception 13:563–82.
Kay, A. 2000. Effective music education. Teaching Music 7 (8): 51–53.
Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Kennerly, R. C. 1996. An empirical investigation into the effect of beta frequency binaural beat audio signals
on four measures of human memory. Hemi-Sync Journal 14 (3): 1–4. http://www.monroeinstitute.org/wiki/index.
php/An_Empirical_Investigation_Into_the_Effect_of_Beta_Frequency_Binaural_Beat_Audio_Signals_on_Four_
Measures_of_Human_Memory (accessed June 20, 2008).
King, J. 1991. Comparing alpha induction differences between two music samples. Abstract from the Center
for Research on Learning and Cognition, University of North Texas.
Levy, J. 1985. Right brain, left brain: Fact and fiction. Psychology Today, May, 43.
Lozanov, G. 1991. On some problems of the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of cerebral activities in
the global-artistic approach in modern Suggestopedagogic training. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning
and Teaching 16 (2): 101–16.
Marsh, J. T., W. S. Brown, and J. C. Smith. 1975. Far-field recorded frequency-following responses:
Correlates of low pitch auditory perception in humans. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
38:113–19.
Mason, R. 2004. The sound medicine of Brian Dailey, M.D., F.A.C.E.P. Alternative and Complementary
Therapies 10 (3): 156–60.
Mavromatis, A. 1991. Hypnagogia. New York: Routledge.
Monroe, R. 2007. Quote in The Hemi-Sync® catalog. Faber, VA: Monroe Products.
Monroe Institute. 1985. Achieving optimal learning states. Breakthrough, March. Faber, VA: The Monroe
Institute.
Morris, S. E. 1990. Hemi-Sync and the facilitation of sensory integration. Hemi-Sync Journal 8 (4): 5–6.
Muftuler, L. T., M. Bodner, G. L. Shaw, and O. Nalcioglu. 1999. fMRI of Mozart effect using auditory stim-
uli. Abstract presented at the 87th meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine,
Philadelphia.
Nakamura, S., N. Sadato, T. Oohashi, E. Nishina, Y. Fuwamoto, and Y. Yonekura. 1999. Analysis of music-
brain interaction with simultaneous measurement of regional cerebral blood flow and electroencephalogram beta
rhythm in human subjects. Neuroscience Letters 275 (3): 222–26.
Norton, A., E. Winner, K. Cronin, K. Overy, D. J. Lee, and G. Schlaug. 2005. Are there pre-existing neural,
cognitive, or motoric markers for musical ability? Brain and Cognition 59:124–34.
Oster, G. 1973. Auditory beats in the brain. Scientific American 229:94–102.
Petsche, H. 1993. Brainwave coherence. Music Perception 11:117–51.
Rauscher, F. H., G. L. Shaw, and K. N. Ky. 1993. Music and spatial task performance. Nature 365:611.
Rauscher, F. H., G. L. Shaw, and K. N. Ky. 1995. Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning:
Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters 185 (1): 44–47.
Rauscher, F. H., G. L. Shaw, L. J. Levine, E. L. Wright, W. R. Dennis, and R. L. Newcomb. 1997. Music
training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children’s spatial-temporal reasoning. Neurological Research
19:2–8.
Restak, R. M. 2003. The new brain: How the modern age is rewiring your mind. New York: Rodale.
Rideout, B. E., and C. M. Laubach. 1996. EEG correlates of enhanced spatial performance following expo-
sure to music. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82 (2): 427–32.
Rideout, B. E., and J. Taylor. 1997. Enhanced spatial performance following 10 minutes exposure to music: A
replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills 85 (1): 112–14.
Rideout, B. E., S. Dougherty, and L. Wernert. 1998. Effect of music on spatial performance: A test of gener-
ality. Perceptual and Motor Skills 86 (2): 512–14.
Ritchey, D. 2003. The H.I.S.S. of the A.S.P.: Understanding the anomalously sensitive person. Terra Alta, WV:
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
14
Headline Books.
Schlaug, G., L. Jancke, Y. Huang, J. Staiger, and H. Steinmetz. 1995. Increased corpus callosum size in
musicians. Neuropsychologia 33:1047–55.
Schmithhorst, V. J., and S. K. Holland. 2004. The effect of musical training on the neural correlates of math
processing: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in humans. Neuroscience Letters 354:193–96.
Smith, J. C., J. T. Marsh, S. Greenberg, and W. S. Brown. 1978. Human auditory frequency-following
responses to a missing fundamental. Science 201:639–41.
Soundlab. 2005. http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/learning/tutorials/SoundVoice/sndvoic2.htm (accessed May
26, 2008).
Sousa, D. A. 2006. How the brain learns. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Springer, S. P., and G. Deutsch. 1997. Left brain, right brain: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Co.
Steele, K. M., J. D. Brown, and J. A. Stoecker. 1999. Failure to confirm the Rauscher and Shaw description
of recovery of the Mozart effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills 88 (1): 843–49.
Swain, J. 1997. Musical languages. New York: W. W. Norton.
Swann, R., S. Bosanko, R. Cohen, R. Midgley, and K. M. Seed. 1982. The brain: A user’s manual. New York:
G. P. Putnam and Sons.
Tatsuya, I., H. Mitsuo, and H. Tadao. 1997. Changes in alpha band EEG activity in the frontal area after
stimulation with music of different affective content. Perceptual and Motor Skills 84 (2): 515–26.
Thompson, J. D. 2007. Acoustic brainwave entrainment with binaural beats. http://www.neuroacoustic.com/
entrainment.html (accessed June 16, 2008).
Tomatis, A. 1983. Brain/mind bulletin collections. New Sense Bulletin 8, no. 4A (Jan. 24).
Vaughn, K. 2000. Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationships. Journal of
Aesthetic Education 34 (3–4): 149–66.
Waldkoetter, R. O. 1991. Hemi-Sync uses in military settings: Education and counseling. Hemi-Sync Journal
9 (4): 11–12.
Webb, D., and T. Webb. 1990. Accelerated learning with music. Norcross, GA: Accelerated Learning Systems.
Weinberger, N. M. 1995. Nonmusical outcomes of music education. MuSICA Research Notes 2 (2): 6.
Weinberger, N. M. 1999. Can music really improve the mind? The question of transfer effects. MuSICA
Research Notes 5 (6): 12.
Weinberger, N. M. 2004. Music and the brain. Scientific American 291:89–95.
West, M. A. 1980. Meditation and the EEG. Psychological Medicine 10:369–75.
Wilson, F. 1991. Music and the neurology of time. Music Educators Journal 77 (5): 26–30.
Wilson, T. L., and T. L. Brown. 1997. Reexamination of the effect of Mozart’s music on spatial-task
performance. Journal of Psychology 131 (4): 365–70.
Zatorre, R. 1997. Hemispheric specialization of human auditory processing: Perception of speech and
musical sounds. Advances in Psychology 123:299.
Zull, J. E. 2002. The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of
learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
© Alex & David Bennet 2009
Theory Of Everything
Theory Of Everything
Theory Of Everything
Theory Of Everything
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
15
A reminder: Thomas W. Campbell has graciously accepted our invitation to
offer the keynote address at Consciousness: The Endless Frontier, The Monroe
Institute’s Twenty-second Professional Seminar, which will be held March 20–24,
2010.
Tom holds a Bachelor of Science in physics and math from Bethany College
and a Master of Science in physics from Purdue University, as well as having done
doctoral-level work at the University of Virginia. He is the physicist described
as “TC” in Bob Monroe’s Far Journeys. Tom began researching altered states of
consciousness with Bob in the early 1970s. He and a few others helped to design
experiments and develop the technology for creating specific altered states. They
were also the main subjects of Bob’s investigations at that time. For the past
thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties,
boundaries, and abilities of consciousness. During that same time period, he
excelled as a working scientist—a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back
the frontiers of cutting-edge technology.
Using his mastery of the out-of-body experience as a springboard, he
dedicated his research to discovering the outer boundaries, inner workings, and
causal dynamics of the larger reality system. In February of 2003, Tom published
the My Big TOE trilogy. The acronym “TOE” is a standard term in the physics
community that stands for “Theory Of Everything” and has been the Holy
Grail of that community for fifty years. My Big TOE represents the results and
conclusions of Tom’s personal and scientific exploration of the nature of existence.
This overarching model of reality, mind, and consciousness merges physics with
metaphysics, explains the paranormal as well as the normal, places spirituality
within a scientific context, and provides direction for those wishing to personally
experience an expanded awareness of All That Is.
Please join us in March to hear Tom share the knowledge and wisdom he has
acquired since following his personal inclination to “find out for himself.”
CAMPBELL TO DELIVER
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
Next Page
16
EXPANDED VISION,
EXTENDED CONTENT
by Leslie France
This is a pivotal issue in the history of the TMI Journal. In keeping with TMI’s re-visioned position as a hub and
clearinghouse for matters of consciousness exploration, we are introducing items of interest from a variety of sources
other than the Institute. They may appear as article reprints, short synopses with links to a complete article, links to
Web sites or books, etc.
This extended content is meant to complement the work of our professional members and Institute staff, whose
research remains the soul of the TMI Journal.
The TMI Journal (originally Breakthrough, then the Hemi-Sync®Journal) has been published by The Monroe
Institute since the mid-1980s. Along with the TMI Focus, it was created to preserve and disseminate the rich legacy of
material that had begun accumulating. As the work of The Monroe Institute penetrated larger populations—making
its unique consciousness-exploration and development tools available to a growing community of users—reports on the
results of those uses streamed in. Over the years an impressive library has accrued.
Now it is time to expand the focus of our publications to include the larger community of consciousness explorers.
Executive Director Paul Rademacher, in his article “A Vision for the Future” (summer/fall 2007 Focus), said of
the Institute’s technology, education, and research: “They are . . . vital pieces of an expanded vision comprised of
interlocking and mutually reinforcing elements. This network of elements will work to enhance the TMI image as a
hub for the exploration of consciousness—a place inspired by curiosity and creativity. . . . TMI is well situated to be
a leader in the ever-expanding field of consciousness. . . . The time is right for a new energy to emerge that may be
beyond anything we could imagine.”
It is our aim to continue offering timely, relevant, forward-thinking subject matter from a broader global
perspective. The TMI Journal emerges from our collective vision. We welcome your links, feedback, and suggestions—
your vision—in this process. Please submit recommendations by e-mail to ann.vaughan@monroeinstitute.org
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
17
Next Page
Students and teachers of human consciousness abound. When in the 1950s Robert Monroe began his journeys out
of the body, he was hard pressed to find someone who could offer the kind of guidance he sought. Not so these days.
Our challenge lies in evaluating the plethora of available resources and identifying those that best serve our needs. One
such resource is prolific British author and philosophy professor Mark Rowlands.
Wikipedia introduces Rowlands as “a peripatetic professional philosopher who achieved widespread fame for his
critically acclaimed autobiography, The Philosopher and the Wolf, published by Granta in 2008. This is the story of a
decade of his life … spent living and travelling with a wolf and the philosophical reflections that resulted from [the
experience]. As a professional philosopher, Rowlands is known as one of the principal architects of the view known as
vehicle externalism or the extended mind, and also for his work on the moral status of animals.”
Among Rowlands’ many scholarly papers that speak to our collective investigation into the nature of conscious-
ness—or in this case, phenomenal consciousness—is “Consciousness: The transcendentalist manifesto,” published in
2004 in the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences by Springer Netherlands. From the abstract published on
SpringerLink: “Consciousness, it will be argued, is not an empirical but a transcendental feature of the world. That is,
what it is like to have an experience is not something of which we are aware in the having of that experience, but an
item in virtue of which the genuine (non-phenomenal) objects of our consciousness are revealed as being the way they
are.”
Our attention was also captured by Rowlands’ 2001 book, The Nature of Consciousness, published by Cambridge
University Press. Reviewer Ion Georgiou on MentalHelp.net says of The Nature of Consciousness that it is “a book filled
with scholarly argument, well-developed—but also well-defined—complex jargon, [an] excellent critique of all the
previous important works of the field (thought experiments included) and written by a philosophy lecturer. This book
is required reading not only for those wanting to get to grips with what is going on in consciousness studies, but for
those who are dissatisfied with the current accounts which, as Rowlands points out, tend to base themselves on an
objectualist thesis.”
A complete bibliography of Mark Rowlands’ published books and papers can be seen on his website.
DEFINING THE ESSENCE OF
CONSCIOUSNESS
Emotion may help the visual system jump the gun to predict what the brain will see
by Jenny Lauren Lee
Science News, August 29th, 2009; Vol.176 #5
“Scientists have long been interested in what role emotions play in recognizing objects ...” As researchers look
more deeply into the human capacity of visual perception they are finding it’s about more than what meets the eye.
The components of affect, mood, and emotion appear to influence what people see and don’t see.
Science News writer Jenny Lauren Lee explains, “Studies show that the brain guesses the identity of objects before
it has finished processing all the sensory information collected by the eyes. And now there is evidence that how you
feel may play a part in this guessing game. A number of recent studies show that these two phenomena—the forma-
tion of an expectation about what one will see based on context and the visual precedence that emotions give to
certain objects—may be related. In fact, they may be inseparable.” Read more ...
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
TMI JOURNAL Summer/Fall 2009
18
THE MONROE INSTITUTE BOARD
OF ADVISORS
James Beal, MS
Barbara Bullard, MA
Wilson Bullard, PhD
Gregory D. Carroll, PhD
Harriet Carter, JD
Eric B. Dahlhauser, CPA/PFS
Brian Dailey, MD
Joseph Gallenberger, PhD
Helene Guttman, PhD
Fowler Jones, EdD
Suzanne Evans Morris, PhD
Joseph Chilton Pearce
Jill Russell, LCSP, MF
Peter Russell, MA, DCS
Ronald Russell, MA
Carol Sabick de la Herran, LLB, MBA
Bill D. Schul, PhD
David Stanley, MD
Charles Tart, PhD, Emeritus
Constance M. Townsend, MD
Stanley J. Townsend, PhD
Raymond O. Waldkoetter, EdD
Kudos to the
Professional Membership
Our recent continuing education certification
is cause for gratitude and celebration. It is a
significant milestone that represents a vast
quantity of work over several decades, most
recently, the strong efforts of the TMI staff ably
led by Development Director Karen Malik.
Thanks to all who participated in that effort!
It was possible to pull together the quantity
and quality of substantive documentation required
to support our certification due, in large part, to
TMI’s Professional Membership. They are the
researchers, practitioners, and educators who
have meticulously applied and tested the effects
of binaural-beat technology and who publish
their results independently, as well as through the
Institute. As we celebrate this milestone in TMI’s
evolution, we give special recognition to the men
and women of the Professional Membership
whose dedication and tenacity has only begun to
pay off.
Back to page 1
Editors: Shirley Bliley, Ann Vaughan
Layout & Design: Grafton Blankinship
The TMI JOURNAL, a publication of The Monroe
Institute®, an educational and research organization
dedicated to exploring and developing the uses
and understanding of human consciousness, offers
current reporting on research and application of
binaural beat technology in a variety of professional
fields.
The TMI JOURNAL is published by The Monroe
Institute, 365 Roberts Mountain Road, Faber, VA
22938-2317. Telephone: (434) 361-1252. Membership
rates from $50 to $100 per year.
© 2009 The Monroe Institute. All rights reserved. No
part may be reproduced without permission.
