Difference in Executive Functions Development Level between Two Groups: Preschool Children Who Took Extra Music Classes in Art Schools and Children Who Took Only General Music and Dance Classes Offered by Preschools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this study adds to the plethora of the development of executive functions through music training. It is nice to see another study within the context of early childhood, as there are only a handful and more research is needed within this context.

The references are well research.  The writing is in very poor English and the author uses words and grammar in ways that attempt to make a strong argument, but these are not backed up with evidence.  I.e., The use of the words like “high sensitivity” on line 4 is confusing.  Is this a term that needs to be defined?  Also, “high popularity of music classes,” within the same sentence.  This sentence seems to be poorly worded.  Also, on lines 29-30 the author states, “All music classes in pre-school age can meet these criteria, and therefore, are potentially suitable for EF training.” That is a bold generalization statement. I would remove the term All.  Grammatical errors like these occur throughout the entire and should be looked over by someone who can help with grammatical errors.

Reference 11 is not a preschool study.  7-8 year old children is not pre-school. 

Some good studies to elaborate on in your literature review that you cite but do not discuss: Bugos & DeMarie, 2017 ; Moreno et al., 2011, and Jaschke et al. 2018.  These are well researched preschool studies with EF and music.  Also another one that you do not mention, but should review and consider is: Bowmer A, Mason K, Knight J and Welch G (2018) Investigating the Impact of a Musical Intervention on Preschool Children’s Executive Function. Front. Psychol. 9:2389. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02389

Lines 89-90 end abruptly.  There should be a brief summary for the review of current literature. What is missing from this? What will your study fill a void in?  What are the similarities, contradictions, in the reviewed research and what is it telling you in general.

Ethical approval?  I see nothing in regards to this. 

“Non-musical” group received no dancing or music supplementary education, but did take standard music classes provided by kindergartens.  – lines 110-111.  What does this look like and how does the control group differ from that of the music group in this study? 

With regards to the base line?  Is there a baseline for the study?  Did you test them before and after the study?  I do not see data on this in the study. 

I find it interesting that the researchers test visual working memory, as music is auditory and I believe this is the first study that uses visual working memory test.  I believe there should be an explanation for this as it may be useful. 

The researcher shows positive results for music as a means to develop EF in young learners, but not all research has show the same positive results, especially for all 3 EF domains.  You have mentioned many of these studies in your article in your literature review and I think it would be good to bring those back in the discussion and discuss why that is the case. Why was your study successful and others were not?  What were the differences that perhaps led to these differences in results? 

Author Response

Please find in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments:

This is an interesting article with useful findings for the field. There are some areas and concepts where clarification is needed and would enhance readers' understanding. I list them here:

Tittle.  “Interrelation of Regular Music Classes and the Development of Executive Functions in Senior Preschool Age” is not clear for the reader. This is a study where the aim was to find out if there were any differences between the two groups (1. children who participated extra music and dance education lessons in arts school; and 2. children who participated only in general music education offered by pre-primary or primary education) concerning children’s executive funtions (EF), but not the development (?) of EF, the development pf EF was not measured?

Row 10. Concept of “musical and non-musical groups” is not a proper way to express the differences between these groups. Better is to use concepts e.g. “group of extra music and dance lessons” and “group of general preschool music lessons”. This need to be corrected throughout the article.

Row 22.  The concept of executive functions (EF) is mentioned at the beginning of the article but the explanation comes later according to Miyake’s model (row 44). This concept and all parts of it need to be more clearly explained in the beginning of this article, e.g. inhibitory control et al.

Row 24. There is a "Diamond и Lee", should it be & instead of и ?

Row 74. Stroop-test-concept needs to be explained here.

Row 87-89. Research questions should be written more precisely.

Rows 102-118. The design of this experimental research (study and control group) is not valid and this should be more criticized and discussed later. The length of extra music lessons varied and some of the children participated in dance lessons, how many and was there any differences according to this or the length of the extra music education?

 Row 119… Tests (NEPSY II and DCCD) used in analyzing the elements of EF are valid and well-known in many countries.

Row 177… The chapter Results is very short and present mainly the table 1 and figure 1. The contents of these should be more opened in the text

Row 200... Discussion chapter is very interesting and some of the results are also presented in this chapter, which could be considered to be in Results.

Row 312 Limitations is a very important chapter and here needs to be explained the problems of this experimental study design. The concept mixed music classes is not relevant, it is better to use extra music classes-concept.

Rows 336-337 is true and you could even tell your idea for the better experimental design for the further study.

Row 339 Conclusions chapter should be re-written because this kind of conclusions cannot conclude according to this study design. These results give only some indications of possible connections between extra music education for the better performance of EF, but this need further research with better quasi-experimental research design.

References: Some bold-text (publishing years) were missing in following rows: 391;425;436.

General: The values and principles of the responsible research ethics implemented in this research should be more precisely informed in this article.

Author Response

Please find in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author/s,

You have made major corrections to your article according to my suggestions, thank you very much. I am satisfied with the content and according to my opinion and evaluation this article is now ready to be published in the Journal without as it is now presented. (I am not a native English speaker so I don't check the detailed language issues.)