Effect of musical improvisation on inter-brain
wave synchronization
William Javier Betancourt Zapata, Dept. Ingenierı́a Biomédica, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
wj.betancourt@uniandes.edu.co
Abstract—This article investigates brain synchronization dur-
ing the musical improvisation. Techniques such as phase locking
value (PLV) and envelope correlation were used to analyze the
electroencephalography (EEG) signals of 5 pairs of musicians
playing together. The study found synchronization in frequency
bands (δ, θ, α, β1 , and β2 ) during performance and improvisa-
tion above random fluctuations. The results suggest that both
following a score and improvise, involve synchronization between
brains and highlight the potential influence of music on brain
activity and interpersonal connections. However, the mechanisms
by which this synchronization occurs are not clear. Therefore,
further research is needed to explore more specific experimental
approaches.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The brain interacts with the world through sensory
and motor processes, enabling actions that facilitate these
interactions. A significant aspect of these interactions
involves coordinated actions towards shared goals among
multiple individuals. Consequently, there has arisen a
necessity to design experiments that assess the behaviour of
electrophysiological signals, providing insights into how the
brain interacts with world. Hyperscanning is a technique that
facilitates the simultaneous measurement of neuronal activity
in two or more individuals. This technique has been applied
in various social contexts, such as during interactive gameplay
[1], non-verbal tasks [2], communication involving speaking
and listening [3], and coordinated time estimation tasks [4],
among others. One commonly studied social environment is
music, and this project aims to investigate how the brain is
involved in situations where people perform music.
Music, an activity practiced in all cultures since ancient
times, has long been recognized for its emotional and social
impact on people. However, its effects on the human brain
are now being explored. Neuroscience research has shown
that music can induce intra-brain synchronization and greater
functional connectivity between brain areas involved in
musical perception and production [5]. An interesting line
of research in this field is the possible brain synchronization
between two people when they perform music together.
Several studies have investigated this phenomenon using
neuroimaging techniques such as EEG through metrics like
phase coupling or envelope correlation [6]. The former
measures whether two signals are phase-locked in the
observed time window and the later reflects the correlation of
energy fluctuations in signals over time [6].
Studies conducted by Lindenberguer et. al. and Müller et.
al. [8], [9] employed EEG to examine brain synchronization
between two guitarists while they played together following
a score. The findings revealed increased intra-cerebral phase
locking during the establishment of preparatory tempo
and during periods of musical coordination, particularly in
the delta and theta frequency bands at frontal and central
electrode sites.
Furthermore, in a study by authors in [11] used
magnetoencephalography (MEG) when people improvise
music -a process involving the spontaneous generation of
novel and aesthetically appealing music. The study found
that improvisation induced increased theta activity (5-7 Hz)
in the left temporal areas associated with rhythm production
and communication, increased alpha activity (8-12 Hz) in
parietal and premotor areas associated with sensorimotor
integration, and decreased beta activity (15-29 Hz) in frontal
areas associated with inhibitory control.
This study aims to assess brain synchronization when mu-
sicians engage in musical improvisation after performing a
score, using methods such as PLV and envelope correlation.
The results of this research are expected to provide new ideas
into how the brain processes and coordinates with other brains
during musical improvisation.
II. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Participants
Four (6) musicians participated (1 woman and 3 men,
mean age = 19 years, range 18-20 years) in this experiment.
With these participants, a total of 5 couples played together.
Previous studies showed that personal closeness [12] can affect
brain synchronisation, so each couple knew and played with
each other before. Each person played instruments such as
piano, saxophone, and bass. None of the participants reported
current psychiatric or neurological conditions or use of neu-
ropsychiatric medication. The study protocol was reviewed
and accepted by the ethics committee of Universidad de los
Andes and all the participants accepted and signed an informed
consent.
B. Experimental Setting
We designed an ABAB experiment, also called alternating
blocks [13]; first (A) performers followed a melody following
a score (control), immediately (B) performers started to play
Fig. 1. A and D) Experimental procedure, and order of experimental tasks. B) Signals obtained from participants. C) Position of the 8 electrodes chosen
according to the international 10-20 system.

spontaneously without following any music sheet. These two from 0.1 to 50 Hz. Subsequently, each EEG signal were
phases were alternated twice and three times, respectively, the normalized by calculating the Z-score using Equation 1.
improvisation time was set to one minute. Transition between
phase B-A was determined by a chime sound. Each session Channeli − µChannel
Zscorei = (1)
was sound recorded so as to identify the start of recording in σChannel
the EEG signal. • Synchronization measures. We calculated the phase syn-
chrony using PLV, following the methodology made by
C. Music material [14]. This is a measure of phase differences that varies
It was chosen 6 music sheets of jazz songs, so that per- between 0 and 1; where 1 indicates perfect phase locking
formers had the possibility to choose a song from a repertoire and 0 indicates no phase locking [1]. The following
of music sheets such as ’All Blues’, ’All The Things Your equation (Eq. 2) defines the PLV:
Are’, ’Autumn Leaves’, ’Guataca city’, ’Take Five’, and ’My T
Favorite Things’. See supplementary material 1. 1 X i(ϕt,n −ψt,n )
P LVt = | e | (2)
T i=1
D. EEG Data Acquisition
Where T is the number of sample points within the
Micromed LTM 64 was used for record EEG signals. Sam- window, ϕt,n and ψt,n are instantaneous phase values
pling frequency was set to 512 Hz. We chose to have an almost obtained using Hilbert transform, the phases of each time
complete representation of the cortex using the following eight series at time t. The second metric used was envelope
(8) channels from the international 10-20 system: Fp1, Fp2, correlation [15]. Here we obtained the signal amplitude,
T3, T4, C3 C4, O1, and O2 (see figure 1C). The reference defined as the absolute value of the Hilbert transform
electrode (Ref) of each person was placed in the Cz area of of the time series [16], we calculated this for each pair
the brain, and the ground (GND) on the right mastoid bone of channels and correlate these values using the Pearson
of each participant grounds were shared due to the limitation Correlation. The equation (3) [17] is presented below:
of the measure device.
PN
E. EEG Data Analysis (x1,n − x¯1 )(x2,n − x¯2 )
r(x1 ,x2 ) = qP n=1
• Preprocessing. The data were analyzed using custom N 2
PN 2
n=1 (x1,n − x¯1 ) n=1 (x2,n − x¯2 )
programs that were run in MATLAB (version R2020a, (3)
The MathWorks Inc.) Each EEG signal was synchronized
in time with the sound recording signal. Event triggers in Where N is the number of window samples, x1 and x2
EEG data, were identified for each change of block (A-B, are the envelope values of each channel, x1/2
¯ are the
B-A). EEG data was filtered with a band-pass FIR filter mean envelope values within the window.
Fig. 2. A) Representative signals within the data set. The graph above is from the score block and the graph below is from the improvisation block. Each
has pre-processed signals, signals filtered in β2 and the envelopes of the filtered signals. B) Statistical results from synchronization analysis at the different
frequency bands. The matrices contain the FDR-corrected p values from non-parametric permutation tests between each the envelope of each channel of each
participant and each frequency band vs. Surrogate. C) Envelope correlation metrics statistically different are shown.

These measures were calculated between each pair of III. R ESULTS

channels making a one-to-one comparison, that is, the
synchronization was estimated between a channel of a
person (e.g. Fp1) and its corresponding channel of the
other participant (Fp1), by using 5 second windows with
50% overlap.
• Surrogate datasets. Surrogate data were created with
signals taken randomly from different sessions. It was
assumed that no significant increase in synchronization
would be found for the surrogate data since these signals
were not taken simultaneously [14]. These signals were
also given the same treatment for the analysis of synchro-
nization described for real signals taken by each pair of
participants.
F. EEG statistical analysis
For the brain correlation measures permutation tests for
comparing two populations were adopted to perform statis-
tical analysis [18]. All musical improvisation windows were
analyzed along with the same number of musical performance
windows. Furthermore, the aforementioned groups were tested
together with the same number of randomly selected surrogate
windows. Subsequently, the results were corrected using the
false rate discovery (FDR) method [19] to correct possible
type one (1) errors.
We looked for differences between each block using a
t-test. We averaged all windows for each group score and
improvisation to evaluate the differences of each group, that
is, using a single subject approach. However, we did not find
any statistical difference (pF DR > 0.05, see figure 3A in the
appendix). -
To overcome this, we decided to compare all the windows in
each group. Assuming that the synchronization is transitory,
we did the permutation test and in the case of the correlation
metric by envelope, it was found that with a pF DR < 0.015
there were significant differences between some pairs of
electrodes in some frequency bands (β2 in channels O2, T4
and T3, and δ in channels O1, O2, T3 and C3). As we can
see in the appendix section in the figure 3B in the matrix on
the left. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference
was found in the metric PLV (see appendix section in the
figure 3B, in the matrix on the right).
We wanted to discard that the differences were due to
random fluctuations. So we created a surrogate distribution
with which we compare each group. These comparisons were
made with the permutation test as before. The results are
shown in the appendix section (see figure 3C) and the figure
2B. -
Regarding the significant results, we found differences in the
level of synchronization for almost all the bands and pairs of
channels, both in improvisation and in score with respect to the
surrogate group. The delta band in the improvisation group did
not, for the most part, have significantly different results than
the surrogate data (figure 2B). On the other hand, in figure
2C, we have the channels whose differences are significant
between improvisation and score groups (δ and β2 frequency
bands).
Finally, in the figure 2A two representative signals can be
observed within the data set. In this part, the signal with
the preprocessing, the filtered signal in the β2 band and
the envelopes for each of the subjects in each block are
shown. In each of the figures, both dark and a light signals
can be observed from the two individuals. Furthermore, it
is evident that the correlation is higher in the score block
compared to the improvisation block. Notably, in the score
block, synchronization is potentially occurring in the form of
transient spikes, which are marked with arrows.
IV. D ISCUSSION
As it was discussed in the introduction, the inter-brain
synchronization has been correlated with a wide range of
social behaviors and characteristics. Specifically, there is
evidence of joint activation (brain-to-brain) of brain regions
when people are playing music together [10], [11], [13].
In the current study we validate and found that there is an
inter-brain synchronization not only when people perform
music together but also, when people improvise music in
frequency bands such as δ, θ, α, β1 and β2 .
First, all signals filtered were passed through the Hilbert
transform [20], which allows obtaining an analytic
representation of a signal. It provides a way to extract
the instantaneous amplitude and phase information.
This information was used for synchronization analysis,
either through PLV or envelope correlation, respectively.
Synchronization analyses were conducted based on the
comparison between groups. The first comparison involved
averaging the envelope correlation or PLV values for each
block (A and B). The results of this comparison are shown
in Figure 3A in the appendix section, where no significant
findings were observed. This could possibly be attributed
to the behavior of synchronization in this type of task. In
the literature, we found articles that based the analysis on
small moments of a certain activity, in this case [9], the
authors focused their analysis on the time period related to
the adjustment of preparatory tempo and the periods around
the coordinated onset of musical performance. However,
synchronization was not evaluated throughout the whole
activity. Our findings are possibly indicating a transient
synchronization over time.
As mentioned in the previous section, assuming that
synchronization in this activity is transient and does not
persist throughout the session, the same synchronization
analysis was performed while considering each value from
each window throughout the session. As shown in figure 3B,
significant results were found in some frequency bands (β2
and δ) and in certain channels (O2, T4, T3, and T3, C3, O1,
O2, respectively), but only in the metric of synchronization by
envelope correlation. Besides, we found that synchronization
values, in frequency band β2 , were statistically different in
both blocks regarding surrogate data. The activity of the β2
frequency band has been linked to mirror neuron activity
[21]. In our study, When a person plays an instrument, it
is possible that the fellow exhibits similar brain activity. In
these cases, the second person would be brain-simulating the
same action as the first person. This phenomenon can occur
in response to different sensory modalities [21].
It has been recognized that the way in which the brain
regions communicate is through brain synchronization [22].
This allows the precise temporal coupling between different
structures to give rise to cognitive processes. It has been
proposed that social interaction would be mediated by similar
mechanisms, inter-brain synchronization would be needed for
a successful interaction.
It was found that there was brain synchronization when
compared with the surrogate data, the synchronization values
were higher in the score block than in the improvisation
block. This is possibly due to the types of synchronization that
occur when following a score. According to literature, four
types of synchronization might occur: reciprocal, induced,
driven, and coincidental [1]. When two people are interacting,
reciprocal or driven synchronization exist [22]. This means
that the brain signals of one person modulate or adapt to
the signals of the other person. In our case these types of
communication are needed to achieve coupling. However, in
the case of score performance, there is an additional element
that possibly contributes to higher synchronization values.
This element could be the score itself, they were following
the same musical piece. This could provide another type of
synchronization - induced -. When two people are engaged
in the same activity, their brain signals exhibit similar
characteristics in regions associated with that activity. In
hyper-scanning investigations, when two people are watching
a movie together [24] their signals would synchronize even
without any interaction between them.
Although various studies have established a relationship
between synchronization and success in social interaction, the
specific underlying mechanisms for this phenomenon are still
unknown. As mentioned earlier, two signals can synchronize
even without direct interaction. This highlights the importance
of considering the stimuli experienced during the interaction
and how individuals process activities and motor actions at the
level of the nervous system. In other words, the causal mech-
anism responsible for harmonic social interaction has yet to
be identified. Furthermore, while effective synchronization has
been observed between signals using different measures, these
measures demonstrate symmetrical effects [24], indicating that
both brains exhibit similar patterns of change. However, it’s
important to note that during interactions, our signals may
not always be symmetrical, suggesting that interactions can
be unidirectional rather than bidirectional.
A. Limitations
The present study presents limitations and raises questions
that could be addressed in future research. Firstly, the sample
size used was small. Additional studies with larger samples
could provide additional and more reliable information about
the mechanisms of synchronization during the coordination
of social interactions. Besides, the synchronization analysis
performed in this article could benefit from focusing on shorter
time periods in order to specifically understand which actions
allow for the coupling of signals, as reported in the literature. It
is also important to consider that the participating musicians
in our study played different instruments, which raises the
question of whether this could affect brain synchronization.
The majority of existing studies have focused on duets of
musicians playing the same instrument.
V. S UPPLEMENTARY M ATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: Suplementary
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Burgess. (Dec. 24 2013). On the interpretation of synchronization
in EEG hyperscanning studies: a cautionary note. Frontiers in human
neuroscience vol. 7 881. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00881
[2] M. Ménoret, L. Varnet, R. Fargier, et al. (2013). Neural correlates of
non-verbal social interactions: a dual-EEG study. Neuropsychologia.
2014;55:85-97. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.10.001
[3] A. Pérez, M. Carreiras, and J. A. Duñabeitia, ”Brain-to-brain entrain-
ment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening,” Sci.
Rep., vol. 7, p. 4190, 2017. 7:4190. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04464-4
[4] Y. Mu, C. Guo, and S. Han, ”Oxytocin enhances inter-brain synchrony
during social coordination in male adults,” Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.,
vol. 11, pp. 1882-1893, 2016. Doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw106
[5] S, Koelsch. (2014). Brain correlates of music-evoked emotions. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 15(3), 170-180. doi: 10.1038/nrn3666
[6] A. Zamm, S. Debener, A. R. Bauer, M. Bleichner, A. Demostraciones,
and C. Palmer. (my. 14, 2018). Amplitude envelope correlations syn-
chronous cortical oscillations in performing musicians. The New York
Academy of Sciences, 1423(1). Doi:
[7] I. Konvalinka, P. Vuust, A. Roepstorff, and C. D. Frith. (2010). Follow
you, follow me: continuous mutual prediction and adaptation in joint
tapping. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11),
2220-2230. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.497843
[8] U. Lindenberger, S. C. Li, W. Gruber, and V. Müller. (2009). Brains
swinging in concert: cortical phase synchronization while playing guitar.
BMC Neuroscience, 10(1), 22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-10-22
[9] Sänger, J., V. Müller and U. Lindenberger. 2012. Intra- and interbrain
synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets.
Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6: 312.
[10] D. Dolan, J. Sloboda, H. Jensen, B. Cruts, and E. Feygelson. (2013). The
improvisatory approach to classical music performance: an empirical
investigation into its characteristics and impact. Music Perform. Res. 6,
1–38.
[11] J. Boasen, Y. Takeshita, S. Kuriki, and K. Yokosawa. (2018). Spectral-
spatial differentiation of brain activity during mental imagery of improvi-
sational music performance using MEG. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:156.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00156
[12] A. Czeszumski, S. Eustergerling, A. Lang, D. Menrath, M. Gersten-
berger, S. Schuberth, F. Schreiber, Z. Z. Rendon, and P. König, ”Hyper-
scanning: A Valid Method to Study Neural Inter-brain Underpinnings
of Social Interaction,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 14, p. 39, 2020. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2020.00039.
[13] M. Sasaki, J. Iversen and DE Callan (2019). Music Improvisation
Is Characterized by Increase EEG Spectral Power in Prefrontal and
Perceptual Motor Cortical Sources and Can be Reliably Classified From
Non-improvisatory Performance. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13:435. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2019.00435
[14] A. Pérez, M. Carreiras, and J. A. Duñabeitia, ”Brain-to-brain entrain-
ment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening,”
Sci. Rep., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 4190, Jun. 2017., doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-
04464-4
[15] A.G. Guggisberg, S. Rizk, R. Ptak, et al., ”Two Intrinsic Coupling Types
for Resting-State Integration in the Human Brain,” Brain Topography,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 318-329, 2015.
[16] A. Zamm, C. Palmer, A-KR Bauer, MG. Bleichner, AP. Demos and
S. Debener. (2021) Behavioral and Neural Dynamics of Interpersonal
Synchrony Between Performing Musicians: A Wireless EEG Hyper-
scanning Study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:717810. doi: 10.3389/fn-
hum.2021.717810
[17] Z. Šverko, M. Vrankić, S. Vlahinić, and P. Rogelj. (2022).
Complex Pearson Correlation Coefficient for EEG Connectivity
Analysis. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 22(4), 1477. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uniandes.edu.co/10.3390/s22041477
[18] F. Butar, and J. Park, (2008). Permutation Tests for Comparing Two
Populations. Journal of Mathematical Sciences amp, Mathematics Edu-
cation, vol. 3, 2: 19-30.
[19] Y. Benjamini, and Y. Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: A
practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995;57(1):289–300.
[20] P. Clochon, J.M. Fontbonne, N. Lebrun, and P. Etévenon 1996. A
new method for quantifying 12. EEG event-related desynchronization:
amplitude envelope analysis. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.
98: 126– 129.
[21] G. Caetano, V. Jousmäki, and R. Hari. Actor’s and observer’s pri-
mary motor cortices stabilize similarly after seen or heard mo-
tor actions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(21):9058-9062.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0702453104
[22] F. Varela, JP. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, et al.The brainweb: Phase syn-
chronization and large-scale integration.Nat Rev Neurosci 2, 229–239
(2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35067550
[23] J.G. Klinzing, N. Niethard and J. Born. Mechanisms of systems mem-
ory consolidation during sleep. Nat Neurosci 22, 1598–1610 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0467-3
[24] A. F. de C. Hamilton, ”Hyperscanning: Beyond the Hype,” Neuron, vol.
109, no. 3, pp. 404-407, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.11.008.
VI. A PPENDIX
Fig. 3. A-B) Statistical results, averaging the window values in each group and comparing all the windows in each group, respectively, from the brain-to-brain
synchronization (Envelope Correlation and PLV) analysis at the different frequency bands. The matrices contain the FDR-corrected p values from nonparametric
permutation tests between each channel in environment of improvisation and following a score. None of the channel pairs showed any significant difference
pF DR < 0.05 for part A and in part B no statistically significant difference was found for the PLV metric and for the envelope correlation metric in some
channels (O1, O2, T3, C3, T4) in some bands (δ and β2 ) statistical differences were found. Rows represent frequency bands and columns each channel pair.
C) Statistical results from synchronization analysis at the different frequency bands. The matrices contain the FDR-corrected p values from nonparametric
permutation tests between each channel of each participant. Besides, each matrix contains the comparison between each group (A-B) with surrogate data for
PLV synchronization metric)