Fig 1.
Schematic diagram representing the person identity recognition procedure adapted from Moro et al.
[58] A. Learning phase. B. Pre-test phase. C. Testing phase, unimodal block. D. Testing phase, bimodal block.
Fig 2.
Schematic diagram representing the object identity recognition procedure adapted from Moro et al.
[58] A. Learning phase. B. Pre-test phase. C. Testing phase, unimodal block. D. Testing phase, bimodal block. Car images in this Figure were taken from the open-access Stanford Cars Dataset [60] and are used for illustrative purposes.
Fig 3.
Person recognition sensitivity scores for each Stimulus Condition (Auditory vs Visual vs Bimodal) according to Group (Musicians vs Non-musicians).
Musicians had better voice recognition sensitivity compared to non-musicians. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Fig 4.
Overall object recognition sensitivity scores for each Stimulus Condition (Auditory vs Visual vs Bimodal) according to Group (Musicians vs Non-musicians).
No differences were found between groups in object recognition sensitivity across all modalities. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
Table 1.
Spearman rank-order correlations examining the relationship between years of training and hours of weekly practice for auditory person and object identity recognition sensitivity. Significant correlations are indicated with an asterisk (p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons).
Fig 5.
Auditory only stimulus sensitivity in the person (face/voice) and object (car/horn) identity tasks for Musicians (grey bars) and Non-musicians (white bars).
Error bars represent standard error of the mean.