Fig. 2 Musician status in the digit span backward task.
Between-subjects 2 × 2 (musician status [musician, non-musician] × language status [bilingual, monolingual]) ANOVAs and Bayesian analyses were conducted for each measure.
Consistent with the previous findings for the digit span backward task, the results of a 2 × 2 (musician status [musician, non-musician] × language status [bilingual, monolingual]) between-subjects ANOVA showed a main effect of musician status, F 3, 96) = 7.68, p = 0.007, η2 = 0.074, with musicians (M mus = 8.97) outperforming non-musicians (M n-mus = 7.44) on the digit span backward.
The results of a 2 × 2 (musician status [musician, non-musician] × language status [bilingual, monolingual]) between-subjects ANOVA demonstrated a main effect of musician status, F 3, 31) = 5.97, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.161, with musicians (M mus = 61.9, SEM = 3.7) outperforming non-musicians (M n-mus = 49.5, SEM = 3.4) on the operation span.
A 2 × 2 (musician status [musician, non-musician] × language status [bilingual, monolingual]) between-subjects ANOVA demonstrated a marginal main effect of music, F 3, 95) = 3.34, p = 0.07, η2 = 0.034, with musicians (M mus = 12.3, SEM = 1.1) outperforming non-musicians (M n-mus = 14.9, SEM = 0.9) in terms of reaction time (in seconds) on the stroop task.
A 2 × 2 (musician status [musician, non-musician] × language status [bilingual, monolingual]) between-subjects ANOVA demonstrated a significant interaction between musician and language status, F 3, 95) = 4.28, p = 0.041, η2 = 0.043.
Table 4 Breakdown of sample size for the operation span and flanker tasks Participant groups Operation span (n = 54) Flanker (n = 95) Monolingual musicians 19 33 Monolingual non-musicians 14 20 Bilingual musicians 13 22 Bilingual non-musicians 8 20.
REICH Music for 18 Musicians.
Each instrument equivalent to 40 musicians.
We are putting 50 musicians to work".
