Fig 1.
Top: Performance in the finger-tapping motor task, split for younger and older piano players and non-piano players. Performance is given by the amount of correctly tapped sequences for each 30s trial. The points indicate the averaged group data, while the curves depict the averaged fitted model for the learning session on day one. For the test session on day two, the line depicts the session mean. Bottom left: Difference in learning rate. For illustration purpose 1-R is depicted, the closer to 1 the value is, the faster the participants achieved their plateau performance. Bottom right: Memory improvement from the last three trials of day one to the three trials on day 2. The error bars denote the standard error of the mean; the asterisk denotes a significant difference (p < .05).
Fig 2.
Age-related decrease in memory consolidation.
The non-piano group shows a significant decrease in memory consolidation with increasing age (r = -.448, p =. .0002). For the piano players this effect is not significant (r = -.167, p = .187) and weaker as compared to non-piano players (z = -1.73, p = 0.042, one-tailed). This pattern of results indicates that piano experience has a protective effect preventing the usual age-related decline in procedural consolidation. The asterisk denotes a significant difference (p < .05).
Fig 3.
Memory improvement after 30 minutes.
In a control experiment we used an identical procedure as the main experiment, however instead of a delay of 24h between the two sessions of the finger-tapping task, memory was tested already after 30 minutes. We did not observe a protective effect of the piano experience on consolidation: old participants showed a significant (F1,56 = 28.51, p < .00001) reduction in offline improvement independent whether they were piano players or not. The error bars denote the standard error of the mean.
Fig 4.
Offline improvement after shorter learning session.
In a second control experiment, we tested whether young piano players would show enhanced memory consolidation if the training period is shorter. The procedure was identical to the main experiment, however instead of 12 trials on day one, participants performed only 6 training trials in the finger-tapping task. We did not observe any significant group differences or interactions, independent of whether the delay between training and retest was 30 minutes or 24 hours. The error bars denote the standard error of the mean.