Conductors Hear It All

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To do their job well, Kurt Masur and his colleagues must be able to hear amid a sea of sound when a single musician in a large orchestra hits a bad note. And in fact a paper in today¿s Nature suggests their brains have adapted to the task: conductors can localize sounds in their periphery better than either pianists or non-musicians.

Researchers from Magdeburg and Hannover in Germany gave seven classical-music conductors, seven pianists and seven non-musicians a unique hearing test. They placed three loudspeakers in front of them and three to their sides. In random order, the speakers then played a range of standard sounds, but occasionally the scientists mixed in deviant noises. The subjects were asked to press a button whenever a deviant sound came from one particular speaker. According to measurements of their brain activity and error rate, all three groups were equally good at identifying deviant sounds from a designated central speaker. Only the conductors, however, could reliably pinpoint deviant sounds from a particular peripheral speaker.

The same brain areas were active in all three groups, suggesting that conductors do not use different groups of nerve cells for this task. But people normally turn their heads to the source of a sound they find interesting. "Thus, everybody, even a non-musician, is quite good at separating sound sources right in front," says Thomas Muente, the lead author of the study. Conductors, though, have a whole orchestra around them, arranged in a semicircle. "They are forced to extend auditory attention to the periphery," Muente adds. Constant training seems to improve that ability.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe