Special Focus on Teaching for Musical Creativity

by Andrew T. Landau and Charles J. Limb

The Neuroscience of
Improvisation
Abstract: Current research in the neuroscience of musical creativity reveals prom-
ising implications for the value of learning to improvise. This article outlines the
neuroscientific literature on musical improvisation and relates these findings to the
benefits of musical creativity. We begin by describing the neural substrates of flow
with respect to the mechanisms of improvisation. We then discuss how neuroscien-
tific literature supports the argument that musical improvisation is a powerful means
to express oneself and communicate with others, facilitating self-actualization and
deeper connections with peers. Music educators can use these discoveries to bolster
their advocacy for the use of creativity in music education and support their use of
improvisation in the classroom.
Keywords: brain research, creativity, discoveries, flow, improvisation, improvise,
neuroscience

What can brain

M
usic is a central aspect of the human
experience. It is a reliable source of
achievement, meaning, and social
connection1 and has even been implicated
as a causal factor of human cognitive evo-
lution.2 While the reasons for such a posi-
tive view are intuitive and self-explanatory
for anyone who has experience with music,
researchers since Darwin have attempted to
provide objective evidence that explains the
importance of music to human life.3 Recent
advances in noninvasive neuroimaging tech-
nologies such as functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI) have allowed great
strides in the investigation of music percep-
tion and production. Functional MRI mea-
sures brain activity through the detection of
changes in deoxyhemoglobin/hemoglobin
levels known as the blood oxygen level– research tell us
dependent (BOLD) signal. The BOLD signal
shows a stereotypical response to increases about musical
or decreases in the neural activity of a brain
region, allowing fMRI to reveal patterns of
creativity, especially
activation, deactivation, and functional con- improvisation?
nectivity throughout the brain.4 An increas-
ing number of studies use fMRI to analyze
the neural activity of humans when engag-
ing in creative tasks, including investiga-
tions into the neural mechanisms of musical
improvisation.5 Creativity requires the pro-
duction of novel ideas that are germane to
a given context, which makes the tempo-
rally structured format of musical impro-
visation an ideal behavior to study this

Andrew T. Landau is a PhD candidate in the Program in Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology at Harvard University,
Boston, Massachusetts. He can be contacted at atlandau@g.harvard.edu. Dr. J. Charles Limb is the Francis A. Sooy Professor
at the UCSF Medical Center’s Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, San Francisco, California. He can be
contacted at Charles.Limb@ucsf.edu.

NAfME is glad to offer one hour of professional development recognition to you for reading this article.
Copyright © 2017 National Association
Please follow the link below and complete a short quiz to receive your certificate of completion. for Music Education
http://bit.ly/NeuroscienceOfImprovisation DOI: 10.1177/0027432116687373
http://mej.sagepub.com

www.nafme.org 27
elusive phenomenon. Despite the inher-
ent challenges of conducting scientific
investigations of something defined by
novelty and unpredictability,6 a series
of experiments using complementary
methodologies has begun to reveal
unique aspects of the creative process.7
There has been an increase in advo-
cacy for the use of creativity in music
education programs over the past few
decades. 8 This advocacy has been
justified by the results witnessed by
music teachers who use creativity in
their classrooms as well as psychology
studies that consistently support wide-
ranging benefits of musical creativity.9
While human creativity manifests itself
through myriad disciplines beyond art,
engaging in musical creativity provides
a unique array of benefits that appear
to be more difficult or impossible to
achieve by participating in other activi-
ties. Engaging in musical creativity
through improvisation and composition
is an effective way to gain skill at an
instrument,10 develop divergent thinking
ability, 11 enhance communication and
trust between musicians, 12 and facili-
tate self-actualization.13 Neuroscientific
research approaches this topic from a
biological perspective that supports and
complements these views.
How do neuroscientific findings jus-
tify the beneficial impact of creativity
within music education programs? First,
we explain how widespread deactiva-
tions in the prefrontal cortex, an area
involved in cognitive control and self-
monitoring, may facilitate an individual’s
entry into a “flow state,” the psychologi-
cal correlate of getting in the groove.
Second, we discuss potential roles of
the medial frontal cortex in coordinat-
ing the production of a cohesive musical
narrative during improvisation. Third, we
describe how the activation of different
brain areas during solo and interactive
improvisation support meaningful com-
munication through music. We conclude
by arguing that neuroscience research
clearly supports the use of creativity
in music education programs and that
music educators can use these findings to
bolster their advocacy efforts and enrich
their use of creativity in the classroom.
28
Flow and the Deactivated Brain
Improvisation is a remarkably complex
activity. Musicians are tasked with spon-
taneously selecting and executing actions
that are both novel and appropriate for
the current musical context throughout
the course of every improvised perfor-
mance. Based on these observations,
one may expect that the brain areas
involved in higher-order motor plan-
ning and cognitive control would show
an increase in activity when improvis-
ing. However, the dorsolateral prefron-
tal cortex (DLPFC), a brain region that
sits just behind the forehead and is cen-
tral to cognitive control,14 shows strong
deactivations during musical improvisa-
tion (Figure 1). Intriguingly, these deac-
tivations become more pronounced
when the experimental design allows
higher levels of musical freedom and
complexity. 15 For example, in studies
requiring musicians to produce impro-
visations that are constrained by mel-
ody or rhythm on a five- or twelve-note
keyboard (e.g., improvising any melody
over a fixed rhythm), the DLPFC has
either become deactivated or showed
no change in activity during improvisa-
tion.16 Two studies that allowed higher
levels of musical freedom and complex-
ity by removing melodic and rhythmic
constraints, used a thirty-five-note chro-
matic keyboard, and recruited experi-
enced improvisers found widespread
deactivations of the DLPFC. 17 On the
other hand, a highly restrictive study
requiring musicians to produce rhythmic
patterns with a single percussive sound
showed an increase in DLPFC activity
relative to the control condition.18
The reduction of cognitive con-
trol during an extremely complex task
allows rapid selection and execution of
novel musical material.19 Without the
interference of monitoring processes
that insert a temporal delay into the
execution of actions, 20 musicians are
able to spontaneously generate musi-
cal ideas in a timely fashion. It should
be noted that deactivations of cognitive
control regions during improvisation do
not indicate an absence of all cognitive
control. A relative reduction of DLPFC
during improvisation compared to con-
trol conditions only implies that this area
is less active during improvisation. For
example, one study found that despite
overall reductions in DLPFC activity, it
showed stronger functional connectivity
with other motor areas during improvisa-
tion than for memorized performance.21
This implies that cognitive control is not
entirely disengaged during improvisation
but used in a frugal and efficient manner
and relatively suspended in comparison
to memorized control conditions.
Reductions in cognitive control may
be a neural correlate of flow, a state
that musicians commonly report enter-
ing during improvisation.22 As described
by researcher Mihály Csíkszentmihályi,
“flow is an almost effortless yet highly
focused state of consciousness,” which
he often refers to as optimal experience.23
Entering a flow state during improvi-
sation can have a profoundly positive
impact on the experience.24 Decreases
in self-monitoring and top-down con-
trol may result in the disappearance of
self-consciousness and reduced worry
of failure, a key component of flow,
thus creating a more immediate connec-
tion with the music.25 According to this
argument, an experimental design that
requires active self-monitoring should
demonstrate an increase in DLPFC activ-
ity. As expected, one study that incor-
porated self-monitoring by requiring
musicians to remember their improvisa-
tions and reproduce them at a later time
showed an increase in DLPFC activity,
likely reducing the possibility of expe-
riencing flow. 26 Flow states are most
often entered during activities with clear
goals and immediate feedback,27 both of
which are present in musical improvi-
sation. Producing music that “works,”
so to speak, can lead to an enhanced
sense of achievement and confidence
in music, and this achievement can be
realized in real time because aural feed-
back is provided instantly.28 The cor-
relation between musical freedom and
DLPFC deactivation also relates to the
requirement of a challenge-skill balance
during flow states.29 For example, musi-
cians report that they only experience
flow when playing with other musicians
Music Educators Journal March 2017
that are matched in skill level.30 Another
study found a significant negative cor- FIGURE 1
relation between DLPFC activity and
Brain Areas Involved in Improvisation
expertise,31 suggesting that flow states
are easier to enter when a musician is
at ease in their musical environment.32
Given that the experience of flow is
highly rewarding and seems to unlock
creative potential,33 findings that relate
observable neural correlates of flow
to controllable behavioral conditions
should be of significant interest to music
educators. These studies make the case
that it is critical for musicians to feel
confident and comfortable in their musi-
cal environment to experience flow. An
educator can facilitate these conditions
by cultivating trust between musicians,
which may encourage them to release
social inhibitions and perform at the
peak of their abilities. Furthermore,
while designing situations in which stu-
dents must improvise with peers at vary-
ing skill levels may be a useful tool to
increase musical competency, improvi-
sational tasks well suited to the student’s
skill level may engender a more imme- (A) Lateral surface of the left hemisphere. (B) Sagittal slice of the medial wall of the brain. See main text for
a description of the functional roles of each area listed. The colored areas indicate approximate locations.
diately rewarding experience.34

Crafting a Cohesive Narrative
The DLPFC is a part of a larger network
of brain regions called the prefrontal
cortex (PFC). The PFC often becomes
activated to guide the flow of neural
activity to fit the needs of a current
task,35 especially when that task is not
yet learned. As behaviors like impro-
visation become more automated, the
brain regions activated to implement
them shift from prefrontal control areas
to lower-order regions that store motor
programs in long-term memory such
as the premotor area and the cerebel-
lum.36 These brain areas are important
for transforming a musical plan into a
motor program that can be executed by
the primary motor cortex. 37 However,
improvisations cannot be fully auto-
mated since musicians must decide what
to play extemporaneously. Even if musi-
cians improvise with automated motor
programs stored in long-term memory,38
the creative element of improvisation
comes from linking these ideas together
in novel combinations. The medial
frontal cortex (MFC)—a cortical brain
region encompassing several areas such
as the presupplementary motor area
(pSMA), the supplementary motor area
(SMA), and the anterior cingulate cortex
(ACC)—has been strongly implicated in
the selection and sequencing of musical
plans during improvisation (Figure 1).
The MFC has become activated dur-
ing every imaging experiment that has
reported neural activity during musical
improvisation.39 Different areas of the
MFC are selectively activated during
preparation and execution phases of
motor tasks.40 It is consistently activated
for the coordination of complex sequen-
tial behaviors41 and likely plays a role
in the generation of compound action
patterns. 42 These findings implicate
the MFC in the sequential planning of
musical ideas during improvisation. For
example, the MFC may be recruited to
coordinate playing a particular harmony
at the precise moment of a key change
or mediate the generative processing
required for playing repeated patterns
like arpeggios. 43 Furthermore, MFC
activity is almost exclusively present
when there is conflict between compet-
ing motor representations 44 and when
actions must be internally generated,
both of which are true during improvi-
sational contexts.45 The MFC may also
be involved in shaping a cohesive nar-
rative during improvisation. It is exten-
sively connected with auditory areas,
cognitive regions important for higher-
order motor control, and limbic regions
involved in emotional processing.46 This
confluence of anatomical connectiv-
ity allows the MFC to integrate current
musical context, structural rules related
to harmony and form, and the emotional
state of the musician to guide the selec-
tion of an optimal musical idea through
improvisation.
Transitioning from DLPFC-mediated
cognitive control to MFC-mediated
automated integrative processing brings

www.nafme.org 29
about a qualitative shift in a musician’s
experience of improvisation and is nec-
essary for a range of benefits associated
with improvisation. Educators can ena-
ble this shift through focused training of
musical structure and by encouraging
extensive practice outside the classroom.
The more prepared a student is for a
musical situation, the more likely it is that
they will be able to call on their auto-
mated resources and fluidly complete
an improvisation while telling a musi-
cal story in the process. Learning how
to produce meaningful improvisations
can facilitate a higher understanding
of musical structure, enhanced musical
awareness, and greater comfort commu-
nicating through music,47 often result-
ing in heightened self-confidence and
motivation to play music.48 Conferring
this ability to students is critical to their
engagement with music and can serve to
empower the student’s musicality.
Expression and Communication
through Improvisation
We now discuss the results of two
papers with experimental designs that
provide a window into unique aspects
of the creative process. 49 Limb and
Braun found focal activation of a brain
region just above the eyes called the
rostral prefrontal cortex (rPFC) in pro-
fessional jazz musicians when improvis-
ing with high levels of musical freedom
and little constraint (Figure 1). Activ-
ity in the rPFC has been linked to the
production of internally generated
thoughts and actions and the integra-
tion of higher-order goals with current
task rules.50 For example, a study that
required subjects to extemporaneously
produce autobiographical narratives in
English and sign language found that
the rPFC was active in both cases.51 The
activation of the rPFC during speech
and sign language, two highly differ-
ent modes of communication, indicate
that its function is fundamental to the
core feature of the task, autobiographi-
cal expression. These findings suggest
that rPFC activity during improvisation
supports the production of personally
motivated musical expressions that may
30
represent someone’s unique musical
voice.52 Furthermore, the rPFC is a criti-
cal brain region for value-based guid-
ance of actions, supporting the idea that
expressing oneself through improvisa-
tion is intrinsically rewarding.53
Although there has only been one
study that reports rPFC activation during
improvisation,54 this observation strongly
supports psychological and pedagogi-
cal observations that improvisation is a
rewarding behavior and can facilitate
expression and communication. 55 The
correlation between musical freedom,
deactivations of the DLPFC that imply the
experience of flow, and activations of the
rPFC that support self-expression is most
likely not a coincidence. Flow and crea-
tivity are intimately connected in musical
improvisation. Studies have shown that
the degree of flow experienced when
composing or improvising music is cor-
related with how creative the result is
and how much personal significance is
attached to the experience.56 Flow is also
impeded when a musician cannot take
ownership of their music or if the musical
setting is too easy for their skill level.57
The best explanation for why the rPFC
has not been activated during other stud-
ies is methodological differences58; some
studies may not have provided musicians
with sufficient freedom to generate com-
plex musical expressions.59 However,
designing an experiment that reliably
promotes creative self-expression is very
challenging,60 especially when the musi-
cians must perform inside an fMRI scan-
ner. More research must be done to clarify
what role the rPFC plays in improvisation.
While Limb and Braun’s study sup-
ports the psychological benefits of solo
improvisation, the findings of Donnay
and colleagues strongly corroborate the
notion that musicians can have mean-
ingful interactions through improvi-
sation. The musicians in the study
improvised four-bar segments back and
forth with one another, allowing the
authors to image the brains of musi-
cians when interacting through music.
The results showed enhanced activation
of Broca’s area (inferior frontal gyrus;
IFG), Wernicke’s area (posterior supe-
rior temporal gyrus; pSTG), and their
right hemisphere homologues during
spontaneous musical interaction (Figure
1). These areas are strongly involved in
the production and comprehension of
both language and music.61 The IFG is
important for syntactical processing,62
and the pSTG is important for audi-
tory working memory,63 suggesting that
these areas work together during inter-
active improvisation to track what the
other musician is playing and “reply”
with an appropriate musical response,64
such as when one musician transposes
or expands on a motive just performed
by the other to engage in meaningful
musical dialogue.65 A statistical analysis
of the music improvised in Donnay et
al. showed that the musicians used simi-
lar notes, rhythms, and melodies when
improvising, confirming that they were
truly interacting with one another.
Musicians commonly report feel-
ing strongly connected to others when
improvising together, and this can lead
to a heightened sense of connection
and empathy toward the other musi-
cians.66 In this regard, it is notable that
the musicians in Donnay et al. showed
deactivations of the angular gyrus, an
area involved in semantic and con-
ceptual processing.67 Musical commu-
nication devoid of semantic content
suggests an immediate, raw connection
between musicians,68 which may explain
why music is such a powerful medium
for developing social bonds and feel-
ing connected to peers. Furthermore,
this finding may relate to the notion of
music as a “universal language” in that
no involvement of semantic vocabulary
appears to be necessary for musical
interaction to occur.
These studies have clear implica-
tions for the music educator. The neu-
ral signature of improvisation strongly
suggests that musicians can effectively
express themselves and communicate
with their peers through musical creativ-
ity. Emphasizing this aspect of improvi-
sation, rather than the technical skills
required for it, will demonstrate that
students can personalize their improvi-
sations, making it a more rewarding
and valuable experience. Students aim-
ing to express themselves and connect
Music Educators Journal March 2017
with peers through music will be able
to tap into higher-order brain regions
during improvisation rather than limiting
themselves to the areas seen for rudi-
mentary pattern generation.69 Educators
may be able to unlock higher expressive
capacities in their students by explicitly
designing situations allowing them to
perform improvisations without worry
about grades or critique. While demon-
strating musical competency and learn-
ing is a critical component of any music
course, giving students an opportunity
to directly reap enjoyment from musical
creativity in a fully open-ended envi-
ronment will motivate them to become
the best improvisers they can be and
encourage them to continue playing
long after they finish school.
Benefits of Improvisation
Musical creativity is a fundamental and
indispensable component of any educa-
tion in music. Although the neuroscien-
tific literature on musical improvisation
continues to evolve, early results corrob-
orate and complement the observations
of music educators on the vast benefits of
improvisation. Neuroscientific research
such as the literature described in this
article can guide a music educator’s
use of improvisation in the classroom.
Knowledge of the neural underpinnings
of spontaneous musical creativity can
underscore the motivation for cultivating
an open, encouraging environment that
facilitates optimal musical experiences
through improvisation. Furthermore, a
neurobiological basis of musical creativ-
ity can provide scientific grounding for
advocates of this important behavior.
With educational funding experienc-
ing heavy cuts that have a significant
impact on non-STEM fields like music,
strong quantitative backing for the ben-
efits of musical creativity is becoming
more and more important. While cur-
rent neuroscientific research has already
begun to justify intuitive notions about
why music is so powerful, it is critical
that more work be done to understand
how the use of creativity in music edu-
cation programs can affect students.
Recent advances in neuroscience have
www.nafme.org
provided humans with an unprece-
dented ability to gain insight into the
mechanisms of the creative mind, and
more work will only serve to expand
our understanding of why music is such
an integral aspect of humanity.
NOTES
1. Adam M. Croom, “Music, Neuroscience,
and the Psychology of Well-Being:
A Précis,” Frontiers in Psychology 2,
no. 393 (2012), accessed February
9, 2017, http://journal.frontiersin.org/
article/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00393/full.
2. Ian Cross, “Music and Cognitive
Evolution,” in Handbook of Evolutionary
Psychology, ed. Louise Barrett and Robin
Dunbar (Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 2007), 649–67.
3. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man,
and Selection in Relation to Sex
(London: J. Murray, 1888).
4. David J. Heeger and David Ress, “What
Does fMRI Tell Us about Neuronal
Activity?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience
3, no. 2 (2002): 142–51.
5. Maddalena Boccia, Laura Piccardi,
Liana Palermo, Raffaella Nori, and
Massimiliano Palmiero, “Where Do
Bright Ideas Occur in Our Brain? Meta-
Analytic Evidence from Neuroimaging
Studies of Domain-Specific Creativity,”
Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015),
accessed February 9, 2017, https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4531218/; Roger E. Beaty, Mathias
Benedek, Paul J. Silvia, and Daniel L.
Schacter, “Creative Cognition and Brain
Network Dynamics,” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 20, no. 2 (2016): 87–95.
6. Malinda McPherson and Charles J. Limb,
“Difficulties in the Neuroscience of
Creativity: Jazz Improvisation and
the Scientific Method,” Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 1303,
no. 1 (2013): 80–83; Arne Dietrich and
Riam Kanso, “A Review of EEG, ERP,
and Neuroimaging Studies of Creativity
and Insight,” Psychological Bulletin
136, no. 5 (2010): 822–48.
7. Roger E. Beaty, “The Neuroscience of
Musical Improvisation,” Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews 51 (2015):
108–17.
8. John Kratus, “Growing with
Improvisation.” Music Educators
Journal 78, no. 4 (1991): 36–40;
Janine Riveire, “Using Improvisation
as a Teaching Strategy,” Music
Educators Journal 92, no. 3 (2006):
40–45; Lee Higgins and Roger Mantie,
“Improvisation as Ability, Culture, and
Experience,” Music Educators Journal
100, no. 2 (2013): 38–44.
9. Croom, “Music.”
10. Kratus, “Growing with Improvisation”;
Riveire, “Using Improvisation”; Higgins
and Mantie, “Improvisation.”
11. Elizabeth Menard, “Creative Thinking
in Music Developing a Model for
Meaningful Learning in Middle School
General Music,” Music Educators Journal
100, no. 2 (2013): 61–67.
12. Emma Hart and Zelda Di Blasi,
“Combined Flow in Musical Jam
Sessions: A Pilot Qualitative Study,”
Psychology of Music 43, no. 2 (2013):
275–91; Augusto Monk, “Symbolic
Interactionism in Music Education:
Eight Strategies for Collaborative
Improvisation,” Music Educators Journal
99, no. 3 (2013): 76–81.
13. Raymond MacDonald, Charles Byrne,
and Lana Carlton, “Creativity and Flow
in Musical Composition: An Empirical
Investigation,” Psychology of Music 34,
no. 3 (2006): 292–306; Higgins and
Mantie, “Improvisation,” 38–44.
14. Earl K. Miller and Jonathan D. Cohen,
“An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal
Cortex Function,” Annual Review
of Neuroscience 24, no. 1 (2001):
167–202; Jan Gläscher, Ralph Adolphs,
Hanna Damasio, Antoine Bechara,
David Rudrauf, Matthew Calamia, Lynn
K. Paul, and Daniel Tranel, “Lesion
Mapping of Cognitive Control and Value-
Based Decision Making in the Prefrontal
Cortex,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 109, no. 36
(2012): 14681–86.
15. Charles J. Limb and Allen R. Braun,
“Neural Substrates of Spontaneous
Musical Performance: An fMRI Study
of Jazz Improvisation,” PLoSOne 3, no.
2 (2008): e1679; Aaron L. Berkowitz
and Daniel Ansari, “Generation of
Novel Motor Sequences: The Neural
Correlates of Musical Improvisation,”
Neuroimage 41, no. 2 (2008): 535–43;
Örjan de Manzano and Fredrik Ullén,
“Goal-Independent Mechanisms for
Free Response Generation: Creative and
Pseudo-Random Performance Share
Neural Substrates,” NeuroImage 59, no.
1 (2012): 772–80; Ana Luísa Pinho,
Örjan de Manzano, Peter Fransson,
Helene Eriksson, and Fredrik Ullén,
31
 “Connecting to Create: Expertise in
Musical Improvisation Is Associated
with Increased Functional Connectivity
between Premotor and Prefrontal
Areas,” The Journal of Neuroscience
34, no. 18 (2014): 6156–63; Malinda
J. McPherson, Frederick S. Barrett,
Monica Lopez-Gonzalez, Patpong
Jiradejvong, and Charles J. Limb,
“Emotional Intent Modulates the Neural
Substrates of Creativity: An fMRI Study
of Emotionally Targeted Improvisation
in Jazz Musicians,” Scientific Reports 6
(2016): 18460, accessed February 9,
2017, http://www.nature.com/articles/
srep18460.
16. Berkowitz and Ansari, “Generation”; de
Manzano and Ullén, “Goal-independent
Mechanisms”; Pinho et al., “Connecting
to Create.”
17. Limb and Braun, “Neural Substrates”;
McPherson et al., “Emotional Intent.”
18. Mirta F. Villarreal, Daniel Cerquetti,
Silvina Caruso, Violeta Schwarcz López
Aranguren, Eliana Roldán Gerschcovich,
Ana Lucía Frega, and Ramón C.
Leiguarda, “Neural Correlates of Musical
Creativity: Differences between High and
Low Creative Subjects,” PloSOne 8, no.
9 (2013): e75427.
19. Evangelia G. Chrysikou, Matthew J.
Weber, and Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,
“A Matched Filter Hypothesis for
Cognitive Control,” Neuropsychologia 62
(2014): 341–55.
20. Clayton E. Curtis and Mark D’Esposito,
“Persistent Activity in the Prefrontal
Cortex during Working Memory,” Trends
in Cognitive Sciences 7, no. 9 (2003):
415–23.
21. Pinho et al., “Connecting to Create.”
22. Arne Dietrich, “Neurocognitive
Mechanisms Underlying the Experience
of Flow,” Consciousness and Cognition
13, no. 4 (2004): 746–61.
23. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, “Happiness
and Creativity,” The Futurist 31, no. 5
(1997): S8.
24. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal Performance (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
25. Ilan I. Goldberg, Michal Harel, and
Rafael Malach, “When the Brain Loses
Its Self: Prefrontal Inactivation during
Sensorimotor Processing,” Neuron 50,
no. 2 (2006): 329–39.
26. Sara L. Bengtsson, Mihály
Csíkszentmihályi, and Fredrik Ullén,
“Cortical Regions Involved in the
32
Generation of Musical Structures
during Improvisation in Pianists,”
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
19, no. 5 (2007): 830–42; Dietrich,
“Neurocognitive Mechanisms.”
27. Csíkszentmihályi, “Flow.”
28. Riveire, “Using Improvisation.”
29. Fausto Massimini and Massimo Carli,
“The Systematic Assessment of Flow in
Daily Experience,” in Optimal Experience,
ed. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi Isabella
Selaga Csíkszentmihályi (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988):
266–87. Csíkszentmihályi, “Flow.”
30. Hart and Di Blasi, “Combined Flow.”
31. Pinho et al., “Connecting to Create.”
32. Kratus, “Growing with Improvisation”;
Hart and Di Blasi, “Combined Flow.”
33. Csíkszentmihályi, “Flow”; MacDonald
et al., “Creativity and Flow.”
34. Riveire, “Using Improvisation”; Kratus,
“Growing with Improvisation.”
35. Miller and Cohen, “Integrative Theory.”
40. Kyoung-Min Lee, Kee-Hyun Chang, and
36. Reza Shadmehr and Henry H. Holcomb,
“Neural Correlates of Motor Memory
Consolidation,” Science 277, no. 5327
(1997): 821–25; Jason M. Chein
and Walter Schneider, “Neuroimaging
Studies of Practice-Related Change:
41. Hiroshi Shibasaki, Norihiro Sadato, Hugh
fMRI and Meta-Analytic Evidence of
a Domain-General Control Network for
Learning,” Cognitive Brain Research 25,
no. 3 (2005): 607–23; Nicole M. Hill
and Walter Schneider, “Brain Changes
in the Development of Expertise:
Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological
Evidence about Skill-Based Adaptations,”
in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise
and Expert Performance, ed. K. Anders
Ericssson, Neil Charness, Robert
R. Hoffman, and Paul J. Feltovich
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2006): 653–82.
37. Ricarda I. Schubotz and D. Yves von
Cramon, “Predicting Perceptual Events
Activates Corresponding Motor Schemes
in Lateral Premotor Cortex: An fMRI
Study,” Neuroimage 15, no. 4 (2002):
787–96; Richard E. Passingham, Sara
L. Bengtsson, and Hakwan C. Lau,
“Medial Frontal Cortex: From Self-
Generated Action to Reflection on One’s
Own Performance,” Trends in Cognitive
42. Petr Janata and Scott T. Grafton,
Sciences 14, no. 1 (2010): 16–21.
38. Wendy Hargreaves, “Generating Ideas in
Jazz Improvisation: Where Theory Meets
Practice,” International Journal of Music
Education 30 no. 4 (2012): 354–67.
39. Steven Brown, Michael J. Martinez,
and Lawrence M. Parsons, “Music and
Language Side by Side in the Brain: A
PET Study of the Generation of Melodies
and Sentences,” European Journal of
Neuroscience 23, no. 10 (2006):
2791–803; Örjan de Manzano and Fredrik
Ullén, “Activation and Connectivity
Patterns of the Presupplementary and
Dorsal Premotor Areas during Free
Improvisation of Melodies and Rhythms,”
NeuroImage 63, no. 1 (2012): 272–80;
Gabriel F. Donnay, Summer K. Rankin,
Monica Lopez-Gonzalez, Patpong
Jiradejvong, and Charles J. Limb,
“Neural Substrates of Interactive Musical
Improvisation: An fMRI study of ‘trading
fours’ in jazz.” PLoSOne 9, no. 2 (2014):
e88665; Bengtsson, Csíkszentmihályi,
and Ullén, “Cortical Regions”; Berkowitz
and Ansari, “Generation”; Limb and
Braun, “Neural Substrates”; de Manzano
and Ullén, “Goal-Oriented Mechanisms”;
Pinho et al., “Connecting to Create”;
McPherson et al., “Emotional Intent.”
Jae-Kyu Roh, “Subregions within the
Supplementary Motor Area Activated
at Different Stages of Movement
Preparation and Execution,” Neuroimage
9, no. 1 (1999): 117–23.
Lyshkow, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Manabu
Honda, Takashi Nagamine, Shugo
Suwazono, Yasuhiro Magata, Akio Ikeda,
Masahito Miyazaki, Hidenao Fukuyama, Renin
Asato, and Junji Konishi, “Both Primary
Motor Cortex and Supplementary Motor
Area Play an Important Role in Complex
Finger Movement,” Brain 116, no. 6
(1993): 1387–98; Maria Jose Catalan,
Manabu Honda, Robert A. Weeks,
Leonardo G. Cohen, and Mark Hallett,
“The Functional Neuroanatomy of
Simple and Complex Sequential Finger
Movements: A PET Study,” Brain 121,
no. 2 (1998): 253–64; Timo Krings,
Rudolf Töpper, Henrik Foltys, Stephan
Erberich, Roland Sparing, Klaus Willmes,
and Armin Thron, “Cortical Activation
Patterns during Complex Motor Tasks in
Piano Players and Control Subjects. A
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Study,” Neuroscience Letters 278, no. 3
(2000): 189–93.
“Swinging in the Brain: Shared Neural
Substrates for Behaviors Related
to Sequencing and Music,” Nature
Neuroscience 6, no. 7 (2003):
682–87.
Music Educators Journal March 2017
43. Martin Norgaard, “Descriptions of
Improvisational Thinking by Artist-Level
Jazz Musicians,” Journal of Research
in Music Education 59, no. 2 (2011):
109–27; Martin Norgaard, “How Jazz
Musicians Improvise,” Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal 31, no. 3
(2014): 271–87.
44. Parashkev Nachev, Henrietta Wydell,
Kevin O’Neill, Masud Husain, and
Christopher Kennard, “The Role of
the Pre-Supplementary Motor Area in
the Control of Action,” Neuroimag 36
(2007): T155–63; Tomás Paus, “Primate
Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Where Motor
Control, Drive and Cognition Interface,”
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, no. 6
(2001): 417–24.
45. Debra A. Gusnard, Erbil Akbudak,
Gordon L. Shulman, and Marcus E.
Raichle, “Medial Prefrontal Cortex and
Self-Referential Mental Activity: Relation
to a Default Mode of Brain Function,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 98, no. 7 (2001): 4259–64;
Passingham et al., “Medial Frontal
Cortex.”
46. Helen Barbas, H. Ghashghaei, S. M.
Dombrowski, and N. L. Rempel-Clower,
“Medial Prefrontal Cortices Are Unified
By Common Connections with Superior
Temporal Cortices and Distinguished by
Input from Memory-Related Areas in the
Rhesus Monkey,” Journal of Comparative
Neurology 410, no. 3 (1999): 343–67;
Paus, “Primate Anterior Cingulate
Cortex”; Amit Etkin, Tobias Egner, and
Raffael Kalisch, “Emotional Processing
in Anterior Cingulate and Medial
Prefrontal Cortex,” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 15, no. 2 (2011): 85–93.
47. Kratus, “Growing with Improvisation”;
Hargreaves, “Generating Ideas.”
48. Lisa Gruenhagen, “Developing Musical
Creativity,” Music Educators Journal
103, no. 3 (2017): 40–45; Riveire,
“Using Improvisation”; Croom, “Music.”
49. Limb and Braun, “Neural Substrates”;
Donnay et al., “Neural Substrates.”
50. Kalina Christoff, Justin M. Ream, and
John D. E. Gabrieli, “Neural Basis
www.nafme.org
of Spontaneous Thought Processes,”
Cortex 40, no. 4 (2004): 623–30; Dick
Passingham and Sakai Katsuyuki, “The
Prefrontal Cortex and Working Memory:
Physiology and Brain Imaging,” Current
Opinion in Neurobiology 14, no. 2
(2004): 163–68.
51. Allen R. Braun, Andre Guillemin, Lara
Hosey, and Mary Varga, “The Neural
Organization of Discourse,” Brain 124,
no. 10 (2001): 2028–44.
52. Strand and Brenner, “Learning to be
Creatively Expressive Performers,” Music
Educators Journal 103, no. 3 (2017):
21–26; Gruenhagen, “Developing
Musical Creativity”; Paul W. Burgess,
Iroise Dumontheil, and Sam J. Gilbert,
“The Gateway Hypothesis of Rostral
Prefrontal Cortex (Area 10) Function,”
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, no.
7 (2007): 290–98; Menard, “Creative
Thinking.”
53. Gläscher et al., “Lesion Mapping.”
54. Limb and Braun, “Neural Substrates.”
55. Higgins and Mantie, “Improvisation.”
56. MacDonald et al., “Creativity
and Flow”; Felicity A. Baker and
Raymond A.R. MacDonald, “Flow,
Identity, Achievement, Satisfaction
and Ownership during Therapeutic
Songwriting Experiences with
University Students and Retirees,”
Musicae Scientiae 17, no. 2 (2013):
131–46.
57. Lori A. Custodero, “Seeking Challenge,
Finding Skill: Flow Experience and
Music Education,” Arts Education
Policy Review 103, no. 3 (2002):
3–9; Massimini and Carli, “Systematic
Assessment.”
58. Beaty, “Neuroscience.”
59. However, one study (McPherson
et al., “Emotional Intent”) that used a
thirty-five–note chromatic keyboard and
constrained musicians only by the “emo-
tional target” did not show activation of
the rostral prefrontal cortex (rPFC).
60. McPherson and Limb, “Difficulties.”
61. Morton Ann Gernsbacher and
Michael P. Kaschak, “Neuroimaging
Studies of Language Production and
Comprehension,” Annual Review
of Psychology 54 (2003): 91–114;
Stefan Koelsch, “Neural Substrates of
Processing Syntax and Semantics in
Music,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology
15, no. 2 (2005): 207–12; Luciano
Fadiga, Laila Craighero, and Alessandro
D’Ausilio, “Broca’s Area in Language,
Action, and Music,” Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 1169, no. 1
(2009): 448–58.
62. Aniruddh D. Patel, “Language,
Music, Syntax and the Brain,” Nature
Neuroscience 6, no. 7 (2003):
674–81.
63. Robert J. Zatorre and Severine Samson,
“Role of the Right Temporal Neocortex
in Retention of Pitch in Auditory
Short-Term Memory,” Brain 114, no. 6
(1991): 2403–17.
64. Adam Hampshire, Samuel R. Chamberlain,
Martin M. Monti, John Duncan, and
Adrian M. Owen, “The Role of the Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus: Inhibition and
Attentional Control,” Neuroimage 50, no.
3 (2010): 1313–19; Rochelle Caplan and
Mirella Dapretto, “Making Sense during
Conversation: An fMRI Study,” Neuroreport
12, no. 16 (2001): 3625–32.
65. Monk, “Symbolic Interactionism.”
66. Ibid.; Hart and Di Blasi, “Combined
Flow.”
67. Jeffrey R. Binder, Rutvik H. Desai,
William W. Graves, and Lisa L. Conant,
“Where Is the Semantic System? A
Critical Review and Meta-Analysis
of 120 Functional Neuroimaging
Studies,” Cerebral Cortex 19, no.
12 (2009): 2767–96; Mohamed L.
Seghier, “The Angular Gyrus Multiple
Functions and Multiple Subdivisions,”
The Neuroscientist 19, no. 1 (2013):
43–61.
68. Ian Cross, “The Evolutionary Nature of
Musical Meaning,” Musicae Scientiae
13, no. 2 (2009): 179–200.
69. Berkowitz and Ansari, “Generation.”
33