How the Brain Tunes Out

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.


The difference between American Idols and the karaoke-challenged may be more than voice deep. Researchers have found that tone-deaf people have an unusual distribution of neurons in the front of their brains.

Tone-deaf individuals cannot recognize familiar songs without lyrics and do not realize when their own singing is out of tune. About 4 percent of people carry this trait. Previously researchers have hunted for the roots of this musical inability in the auditory centers of the brain. But they did not find any differences in these regions between tone-deaf and normal listeners. So Krista Hyde of the Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill University and her colleagues scanned entire brains to search for anatomical anomalies. They found that the amusical subjects had less white matter—neuron axons that are wrapped in an insulating sheath of myelin—in the right inferior frontal gyrus. The worse they performed on musical pitch tests, the less white matter they had.

Such individuals also had more gray matter—unmyelinated neurons—in the same region. Other imaging studies have recently suggested this brain area plays a role in musical-pitch processing and memory. This neuroanatomical difference could be the result of neurons not migrating properly during development. Similar malformations are associated with neural developmental disorders, such as dyslexia. “Tone deafness might be analogous to something in language,” Hyde says. “These disorders exist in language, so why not in music? One can argue that music is another language.” Uncovering these brain differences could lead to treatment for tone deafness, he adds. That could be music to many ears.

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