Bouncing to the Beat, Helping with the Chores

To tell you the truth, I usually find that talks on research do not hold my attention. But David Gerry’s (of the McMaster Institute for Music and the Mind) recent presentations at the recent ECMMA International Convention were unusually entertaining.

I won’t go into the “famous” study, because you can watch a TV spot and read numerous articles about it. (I highly recommend checking these out – great material for convincing any skeptic about the value of active music classes for young children!) 

But what I found the most fascinating was some research that is in process – so the sample is small and the results are not written up yet. It was definitely the most entertaining part of the presentation, because we got to watch David bouncing imaginary babies.

Here (in my words) is the research question: does bouncing to the beat of a musical rhythm pattern create different behaviors than random bouncing to the same rhythm? And specifically, does one kind of bouncing make babies more attentive and helpful than another?

Each baby got two minutes of one kind of bouncing. Then the baby got to watch as the researcher either dropped a crayon while drawing, or dropped a clothespin while hanging up cloth on a line. The researcher groaned and stretched, reaching for the crayon or clothespin, and couldn’t quite reach far enough.

It’s a small sample – around 80 babies, if I remember correctly. But still, I find the results startling:

90% of the babies who had bounced to the beat toddled over, picked up the object, and handed it to the researcher.

90% of the babies who had bounced randomly toddled over, picked up the object, and wandered away.

David Gerry did not speculate upon the whys of this data. But, not being a researcher in the midst of an unfinished study, I can. Two possibilities spring to mind, which are really two sides of the same coin. The first speculation has to do with cognition, and the second with relationship.

Bouncing to the beat is an inherently organizing activity. My guess is that it replicates, in a macro-version, the oscillating patterns set up by the cerebellum. It is by “bouncing” in and out of these “beats” that the cortical commands are received and replicated, and memos sent to the relevant parts of the anatomy. When we move our bodies, we are sending signals across the brain; when we move in a rhythmic way, these signals are more organized; easier to process, file, use for other applications.

So perhaps the babies who bounced to the beat had a little bit more neural growth than the babies who bounced randomly. Or perhaps the growth that occurred was targeted differently – perhaps to the executive functioning capacity. Picking up a dropped clothespin and handing it to the researcher could be, for a toddler, an exercise in creative problem solving.

It is also possible that the growth enhanced the function of the working memory. Perhaps the babies who bounced randomly just forgot what to do next after picking up the dropped object. They couldn’t hold the context in their minds. Or maybe there never was a context of relationship to begin with; they just saw something on the floor that they wanted, and they took it.

And now we are getting to relationship. Because, being held and bouncing to the beat is a bonding experience. It is a way that mothers and other caregivers have connected with babies since time began.

But being bounced randomly when there is a musical beat present is not necessarily a neutral experience. It may be disorienting, because two powerful rhythmic experiences are happening simultaneously – one kinesthetic, one auditory – and they are in conflict. Perhaps the neural pathways created for these randomly bounced babies occurred in a different part of the brain. Or perhaps there was less neural growth altogether.

And because that experience of entraining to the beat with another person did not happen, perhaps it didn’t occur to these babies to connect with the need being projected by these other people. They did not bond. They weren’t in tune with these people; they weren’t reading their signals.

We have always known that moving together in rhythm to music helps people to cooperate with one another. It’s what underlies every work song (Haul Away, Joe!) and large group song (We Shall Overcome) and every lullaby (Rockaby Baby). It is fascinating to see that two minutes of bouncing together to the beat of the music seems to create an impulse in babies to creatively problem-solve, cooperate, feel connected with others.

I can’t wait to see the headlines for this study. “Research shows that babies who are bounced to the beat are more likely to pick up their rooms . . . “

Meanwhile, it’s definitely a story to pass on to parents. We can't say that anything has been "proved" by it. But they will draw their own conclusions.

Comments

Margaret Kelly Aug 28, 2012

Wow!  I hadn’t heard of that study and I find it absolutely amazing!  I would really be interested in follow-up studies about this.  It DOES seem that there was some sort of bonding when the bouncing was to the beat vs. the random bouncing which left the little ones feeling disordered.  Good evidence of the positive impact music and movement can have on young children.

Movement Matters Sep 03, 2012

Thanks, Margaret! That study was still in progress, so few people have heard of it! One of the fun things about going to these conventions is to find out about things in the field as they are happening . . .
If you keep an eye on the McMaster Institute for Music and the Mind website, I’m sure you’ll find out when the results become public.
Meanwhile, you’ll be able to watch David Gerry’s talk when the ECMMA virtual convention videos become available.
And I agree with you about the bonding effect. The study really gives backbone to the idea that forming a relationship with a tuned-in adult, in a music and movement context, can have a super-positive impact on young children - and in ways that are not obviously related to music!