December 2018
Why Do We Love Music?
By Robert J. Zatorre, Ph.D.
Editor’s Note: While the human brain is hardwired to feel pleasure for basic survival necessities,
such as eating and sex, music—although obviously pleasurable—doesn’t offer the same evolutionary
advantages. So why do we respond to patterns of sounds that disappear in an instant? Why do we
belt music from the top of our lungs, learn to play instruments, and empty our bank accounts to see
Bruce Springsteen on Broadway? Our author offers some valuable insights.
1
December 2018
Human beings seem to have innate musicality. That is, the capacity to understand and derive
pleasure from complex musical patterns appears to be culturally universal.1 Musicality is expressed
very early in development.2 In this sense, music may be compared to speech—the other cognitively
interesting way that we use sound. But whereas speech is most obviously important for
communicating propositions or concepts, obtaining such knowledge, this is not the primary function
of music. Rather, it is music’s power to communicate emotions, moods, or affective mental states
that seems beneficial to our quality of life.
Which brings us to the question that forms the title of this article: why do we love music? On its
face, there is no apparent reason why a sequence or pattern of sounds that has no specific
propositional meaning should elicit any kind of pleasurable response. Yet music is widely considered
amongst our greatest joys.3 Where does this phenomenon come from?
There are several approaches to this question. A musicologist might have a very different answer
than a social scientist. Since I’m a neuroscientist, I would like to address it from that perspective—
recognizing that other perspectives may also offer valuable insights. An advantage of neuroscience
is that we can relate our answer to established empirical findings and draw from two especially
relevant domains: the neuroscience of auditory perception and of the reward system. To give away
the punch line of my article, I believe that music derives its power from an interaction between
these two systems, the first of which allows us to analyze sound patterns and make predictions
about them, and the second of which evaluates the outcomes of these predictions and generates
positive (or negative) emotions depending on whether the expectation was met, not met, or
exceeded.
The Auditory Perception System
It’s remarkable to think that all sound—a baby crying, thunder, the strains of a waltz—is carried by
nothing more than vibrations of molecules in the air. Our rich phenomenological experience of
these sounds is the product of a sophisticated perceptual system that takes these vibrations and
transforms them into what psychologists call internal representations (perception, thoughts,
memories, emotions, etc.), which can be related to our memories of other sounds and knowledge
2
December 2018
of the world in general. Part of the process has to do with extracting relevant acoustical features
from the sounds and encoding them in the pattern of nerve firings.
This process is accomplished by operations happening in three separate brain areas: the brainstem,
thalamus, and auditory cortex. A cello string when plucked, for example, will vibrate at a
characteristic frequency based on the physics of its materials and its tension; if it is the first string of
a conventionally tuned cello, for example, the entire length of the string would vibrate about 65
times in one second, corresponding to the musical note C. Neurons in the aforementioned nuclei
and the cortex will respond in a synchronized manner with a corresponding neuronal oscillation4 of
65Hz, thus transforming physical energy to a pattern of neural activity representing sound
frequency.
A great deal of research suggests that neurons in the auditory cortex, especially in the right cerebral
hemisphere, are important for distinguishing fine gradations of frequency, creating the
psychological sensation of pitch.5 Pitch is fundamental to most music, but it is not sufficient merely
to detect that a pitch has changed; it is essential to determine the relationships between pitches
within a musical system.
An introductory class in music theory would, accordingly, include a description of musical intervals,
the ratio between the frequencies of two tones, which determine the patterns that form melodies
(when the tones are sequential) and harmonies (when the tones are simultaneous). Importantly,
intervals are defined by the relations between pitches independently of the pitch values
themselves. That is, a minor third is defined (roughly) as the ratio six to five, so any frequencies in
that relation will be perceived as a minor third.
This property, known as transposition, is what allows us to recognize the same song when sung in
different keys (if we did not have this capacity, covers of familiar songs would not work). Several
studies have indicated that the brain pathways for this kind of computation lie outside the auditory
cortex proper, in regions connected to it that are also involved in other kinds of sensory
transformations.6
3
December 2018
A further complication is that sounds disappear instantly from the environment—unlike, say,
objects in a visual scene. Because sounds are evanescent, the brain also needs a mechanism to hold
them temporarily in mind, in order to calculate pitch relationships, and other properties. (This is
equally important for speech, where a sentence could not otherwise be understood since each
word disappears the instant it is spoken.) This capacity depends on the faculty called working
memory: roughly, the ability to retain and process information over short time periods.
Several brain circuits emanating from the auditory cortex, mainly the dorsolateral frontal cortex and
posterior areas in the parietal lobe, are important for this ability, and hence indispensable for
musical perception.7,8 People with congenital amusia (sometimes called tone-deafness)—the
inability to comprehend musical relationships and hence to perceive melodies or other musical
structures—have been found to have reduced connections between auditory areas and frontal
regions, and therefore struggle to figure out the relationships between sounds.8
The Prediction System
The foregoing description gives a brief and highly simplified glimpse of some of the machinery that
allows us to perceive tones and determine relationships between them. But, of course, that barely
scratches the surface of what’s involved in responding to musical sounds. One of the most
important aspects of perception, and one that is critical for music, is the ability to anticipate future
events based on past experience.9
This is an essential ability for survival, because an organism can more effectively prepare an
appropriate response to an event if that event can be predicted. In the case of music—and, it is
thought, of language—there is a rich statistical relationship between patterns of sounds. Every
musical system, like every language, has a syntax, that is, a set of rules concerning which sounds
follow other sounds. The auditory brain is exquisitely sensitive to such regularities and can learn
statistical relationships quickly and efficiently, even early in life, via exposure to exemplars of the
system in question (melodies, rhythms, words, and sentences). This is how babies learn about
sound patterns in their environments.10
4
December 2018
To test the neural substrates of this ability, researchers have devised procedures presenting a set of
sounds that follows standard, expected rules (e.g., a sequence of chords), and then introducing a
new item that either should or should not follow, based on the context (e.g., an out-of-key chord).
In this situation, violations of expectancy yield a characteristic brain response that originates in
auditory areas and frontal regions.11
Such results reveal that when we listen to music we not only encode sound properties and their
relationships, but also make predictions about what’s coming up (otherwise we would not find the
out of key chord jarring). Such predictions are based not only on what has just been experienced in
the moment, but also on a knowledge of sound patterns in general drawn from our entire listening
history. If one lacks sufficient exposure to the rule system of a different culture, appropriate
predictions are often difficult, and that culture’s music may be hard to understand. The same
principle would apply to another culture’s language.
What about Pleasure?
The brain mechanisms sketched very roughly above provide the substrates for a number of
perceptual and cognitive skills without which, I argue, music would not be possible. If we could not
extract pitch information, or hold it in memory, or understand pitch relationships, or make
predictions, we could not have what we call music. But none of this explains why we like music so
much. For insights into that question, we need to consider a totally different set of brain structures:
the reward system.
Scientists have accumulated a great deal of evidence, from both animal models and human studies,
to identify the system that signals the presence of a stimulus that has value for the organism. An
obvious example would be a hungry rat that is trained to press a lever in response to a cue (such as
a light coming on) to receive food. Early studies showed that in this situation certain neurons
situated deep in the subcortex, in a structure called the striatum, responded with bursts of
dopamine release when the food was delivered.12
But it soon became apparent that these responses were doing much more than merely signaling the
presence of food, because after a time, these neurons stopped responding if the amount of food
5
December 2018
was constant. That is, when the food was expected the neural responses decreased; but if the
amount suddenly became larger, a vigorous dopamine response would return; and if less or no
food was delivered, the response would actually be inhibited below baseline level.12 Thus, this
reward system was encoding the difference between what was expected and what was actually
obtained, a concept that became known as reward prediction error (where positive reward
prediction error corresponds to a better outcome than was anticipated).
The reward system has been shown to be responsive to a wide range of complex stimuli in both
humans and animals. Human neuroimaging studies consistently show activity in the striatum and
other components of the reward system when people are shown images of food, or allowed to win
money in gambling, or by playing video games, or are shown erotic stimuli.13 Thus, the reward
system is thought to underlie the response to many different kinds of inputs that are, globally
speaking, beneficial to the organism’s survival or well-being. Food and sex are, of course,
biologically necessary for survival (of the individual and the species, respectively); and money may
be thought of as having value based on the fact that one may exchange it for other desired items.
Imaging studies have also shown reward-system activity for various drugs, including cocaine and
amphetamines.14
Music and the Reward System
So what does music have to do with rats pressing levers or people taking drugs? When our group
first started to research music-induced pleasure, we did not know whether the same reward system
that reacts to biologically relevant stimuli would also be engaged by an entirely abstract stimulus
such as music. After all, music is not necessary for survival, nor is it a medium of exchange like
money, nor a chemical substance like a drug that can trigger direct neuronal responses.
Our team set out to explore this question using brain imaging techniques that would allow us to
measure activity in the striatum during the experience of high pleasure from music. But we
immediately ran into a methodological problem: how to measure a subjective response, such as
pleasure, in a rigorous, objective, scientifically viable manner? The study of something as complex
and potentially uncontrolled as musical emotion represented a particular hurdle. In our first
6
December 2018
approach to this question, we came up with the idea of studying “chills,” the pleasurable physical
response that many people experience while listening to certain musical passages.
The advantage of this approach was that chills are accompanied by physiological changes (increased
heart rate, respiration, skin conductance, and so forth), from which we could derive an objective
index of the timing and intensity of maximal pleasure. To implement this idea, we asked each
participating individual to select their own favorite music, guaranteed to elicit maximal pleasure.
Thus armed, we were able to demonstrate in a series of studies that both dorsal and ventral
striatum does indeed respond to moments of peak pleasure induced by music15 and, using a
neurochemically specific radioligand (a radioactive biochemical substance that binds to a relevant
molecule), that dopamine release occurred in the striatum during these moments.16
These studies transformed our understanding of the neurobiology of musical pleasure but left
unanswered precisely how or why the reward system is thus engaged. A clue to this question was
our observation that there were two phases to the dopamine response: an anticipatory phase,
occurring a few seconds prior to peak pleasure in one sub-portion of the striatum, and a second
response in a different sub-region at the actual point of pleasure.16 This finding indicates that
expectations are as important a source of pleasure as resolutions. Interestingly, music theorists
have posited something similar for many years: that emotional arousal and pleasure in music arise
from creating tension and then leading the listener to expect its resolution, which resolution is
sometimes delayed or manipulated to increase the expectation even further.9
Using the chills response proved very useful; but one could ask whether the engagement of the
reward system is limited to this experience; since not everyone gets chills, and since music can be
very pleasurable even without any chills, it seemed important to test musical pleasure without any
chills being involved. To do so we used a paradigm adapted from neuroeconomics, in which people
listen to music excerpts and decide how much money they would be willing to spend to buy a
recording of it. The monetary amount is then a proxy for value, and indirectly, for pleasure. With
this approach we also found that the ventral striatum showed increased activity as value increased.
17
7
December 2018
But a second clue emerged from this study because we also found that as value increased, and the
response in the striatum increased, the higher was its coupling (measured in terms of correlated
brain activity) to the auditory cortex and its associated network: the more listeners liked a given
musical piece (indexed by their willingness to spend more money), the greater the cross-talk
between striatum and auditory system.17 This finding is important because it links the activity of the
perceptual system, as reviewed above, with that of the reward system. Thus, we propose that the
two systems have different functions: the perceptual mechanism computes the relationships
between sounds and generates expectancies based on those patterns {“I just heard this sound,
followed by that sound, therefore the next one should be X”); the outcome of the prediction (sound
X compared to the actual sound perceived) is then evaluated by the reward system (“X is not as
good as I expected, therefore it is not pleasurable, or X is surprising and better than expected
therefore it is highly pleasurable”).
And just as one might expect from our reward prediction model, the reward response is greatest
neither when the outcome is exactly as expected (which is boring), nor when the outcome is
completely unpredictable (confusing), but when it hits the “sweet spot” of being somehow better
than expected.18 This concept, though still lacking full definition, is one that musicians find intuitive:
the best music, typically, neither formulaically follows conventions nor is too complex to follow, but
has the virtue of moderation in its ability to surprise the listener with novelty within a predictable
framework.5
If the account of musical pleasure presented in the preceding paragraphs is roughly correct, it leads
to some testable predictions. First, we reasoned that if musical pleasure arises from interactions
between auditory networks and the reward system, then such interactions should be disrupted in
persons who are unable to experience musical pleasure. To assess this idea, we sought out such
individuals, and discovered that three to four percent of the general population exhibits what we
labelled “specific musical anhedonia.” These people have reasonably intact overall hedonic capacity
(they enjoy food, sex, social activities, money, even visual art), nor do they have a perceptual
disorder such as amusia (tone deafness); they just don’t enjoy or appreciate music, as shown by
their lack of physiological responses to it.19
8
December 2018
When we scanned their brains, we discovered that their reward system responded normally to a
gambling game, but not to music; and the coupling between auditory and reward systems was
essentially absent during music listening.20 Thus, as predicted by our model, musical anhedonia
emerges in the absence of the typical interaction between the two systems.
One might say that musical anhedonia represents a chicken and egg problem: perhaps it is the lack
of musical pleasure that leads to decreased connectivity between auditory and reward systems, and
not vice versa. To exclude such a possibility, it is critical to test a second prediction arising from our
model: if activity in the reward system really underpins musical pleasure, then we should be able to
modulate that pleasure by manipulating activity within that system in the normal brain.
Previous work had shown it possible to excite or inhibit the reward system, by changing dopamine
activity in the striatum with a noninvasive brain stimulation technique known as transcranial
magnetic stimulation.21 We recently implemented this technique while people listened to music
(their own favorites and some choses by us) and found that, just as we predicted, listeners reported
more pleasure and showed greater physiological responses (skin conductance) to music in the
context of excitatory stimulation, and reported less pleasure, even to their own selected music, and
showed diminished physiological responses during the inhibitory stimulation.22 This finding provides
causal evidence that musical pleasure is directly linked to reward system activity.
I am very pleased to see that music neuroscience has shifted over the past decades from a fringe
area to a solid research domain, with labs in many countries making important contributions and
substantial progress reported in respected journals. What not long ago seemed like an intractable
problem—how music can result in strong affective and pleasurable responses—is now a topic that
we understand well enough to have significant insights into and testable hypotheses about. It is an
exciting time to be working in this domain; we look forward to future developments which, based on the
science discussed in this piece, we hope will include applications to clinical, educational, and even
artistic domains.
9
December 2018
Bio
Robert Zatorre, Ph.D., is a cognitive neuroscientist at the Montreal Neurological Institute of McGill
University. His laboratory studies the neural substrate for auditory cognition, with special emphasis
on two characteristically human abilities: speech and music. He and his collaborators have
published about 300 scientific papers on topics including pitch perception, auditory imagery, brain
plasticity, and musical pleasure. In 2006 he became the founding co-director of the international
laboratory for Brain, Music, and Sound research (BRAMS), a unique multi-university consortium
dedicated to the cognitive neuroscience of music. He tries to keep up his baroque repertoire on the
organ whenever he gets a chance.
References
1. Savage, P. E., Brown, S., Sakai, E., & Currie, T. E. (2015). Statistical universals reveal the structures
and functions of human music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(29), 8987-
8992.
2. Honing, H. (2018) The origins of musicality. MIT Press
3. Brattico, E., & Jacobsen, T. (2009). Subjective Appraisal of Music. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1169(1), 308–317.
4. Kraus, N., Anderson, S., White-Schwoch, T., Fay, R.R., and Popper, R.N. (2017) The Frequency-
Following Response. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.
5. Zatorre, R. J., Belin, P., & Penhune, V. B. (2002). Structure and function of auditory cortex: music
and speech. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(1), 37-46.
6. Klein, M. E., & Zatorre, R. J. (2014). Representations of invariant musical categories are decodable
by pattern analysis of locally distributed BOLD responses in superior temporal and intraparietal
sulci. Cerebral Cortex, 25(7), 1947-1957.
7. Kumar, S., Joseph, S., Gander, P. E., Barascud, N., Halpern, A. R., & Griffiths, T. D. (2016). A brain
system for auditory working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(16), 4492-4505.
8. Albouy, P., Mattout, J., Bouet, R., Maby, E., Sanchez, G., Aguera, P. E., ... & Tillmann, B. (2013).
Impaired pitch perception and memory in congenital amusia: the deficit starts in the auditory
cortex. Brain, 136(5), 1639-1661.
9. Huron, D. B. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. MIT press.
10
December 2018
10. Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone
sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70(1), 27-52.
11. Maess, B., Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Musical syntax is processed in
Broca's area: an MEG study. Nature neuroscience, 4(5), 540.
12. Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron, 36(2), 241-263.
13. Sescousse, G., Caldú, X., Segura, B., & Dreher, J. C. (2013). Processing of primary and secondary
rewards: a quantitative meta-analysis and review of human functional neuroimaging studies.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(4), 681-696.
14. Drevets, W. C., Gautier, C., Price, J. C., Kupfer, D. J., Kinahan, P. E., Grace, A. A., ... & Mathis, C. A.
(2001). Amphetamine-induced dopamine release in human ventral striatum correlates with
euphoria. Biological psychiatry, 49(2), 81-96.
15. Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with
activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 98(20), 11818-11823.
16. Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically
distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature
neuroscience, 14(2), 257.
17. Salimpoor, V. N., van den Bosch, I., Kovacevic, N., McIntosh, A. R., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J.
(2013). Interactions between the nucleus accumbens and auditory cortices predict music reward
value. Science, 340(6129), 216-219.
18. Chmiel, A., & Schubert, E. (2017). Back to the inverted-U for music preference: A review of the
literature. Psychology of Music, 45(6), 886–909.
19. Mas-Herrero, E., Zatorre, R. J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2014). Dissociation
between musical and monetary reward responses in specific musical anhedonia. Current Biology,
24(6), 699-704.
20. Martínez-Molina, N., Mas-Herrero, E., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Zatorre, R. J., & Marco-Pallarés, J.
(2016). Neural correlates of specific musical anhedonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 113 (46) E7337-E7345.
21. Strafella, A. P., Paus, T., Barrett, J., & Dagher, A. (2001). Repetitive transcranial magnetic
stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus.
Journal of Neuroscience, 21(15), RC157-RC157.
11
December 2018
22. Mas-Herrero, E., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2018). Modulating musical reward sensitivity up
and down with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 27.
12
