Some interesting contributions here, and thanks kat for the article. Here's the part I don't understand:

<< Researchers led by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone of Beth Israel taught nonmusicians a simple five-finger piano exercise. The volunteers practiced in the lab two hours a day for five days. Not surprisingly, the amount of territory the brain devotes to moving the fingers expanded. >>

Two hours??? Okay class, do-mi-sol-fa, mi-fa-re-mi, do. Now keep playing that for the next two hours. Not surprisingly, the attention span begins to fade after the first 40 minutes or so. But keep going! And come back every day this week for more lessons.

<< But then the scientists had another group think only about practicing- that is, the volunteers mentally rehearsed the five-finger sequence, also for two hours at a time. "This changed the cortical map just the way practicing physically did" says Pascual-Leone. >>

Now group, you are going to sit and think about playing for the next two hours.

My cortical map is folding up, just thinking about thinking about playing for two hours. How much are these subjects getting paid? Sorry to be obtuse, but this sounds like the music class from hell. Now for the part I don't understand.

The experimenter concluded about the second group:

<< They made fewer mistakes when they played, just as few mistakes as people actually practicing for five days. >>

Fewer than what? Doesn't he mean, they made just as many mistakes as people actually practicing -- ? If so, what has been proved?

His conclusion: << Mental and physical practice improves performance more than physical practice alone. >>

Is there such a thing as physical practice alone? I thought the second group was doing mental practice alone.

I was hoping "mental practice alone" would work, just like Prof. Harold Hill's famous Think System. Then we could just think about practicing the piano, and make "just as few" mistakes as though we had actually played one.

I'm sure the fine people at Beth Israel are onto something here. (Perhaps the Newsweek writer got things mixed up, what with all the re-writing and editing.) This could lead to a whole new school of musical pedagogy. Want to learn the violin? Maybe if you wish, really really hard ...

Getting back to the Mozart Effect. Is there any evidence that Mozart himself was good at math? From what I have read, he earned lots of money but he was lousy at accounting, and died broke. Now please, don't everyone jump on me, because I love Mozart's music, even the operas, and I'm very sorry he died so young, and so miserably. One thing we can be sure of is that he was very good at music, but you won't find his name in books on the history of mathematics.

I'm afraid that if there were anything to this Mozart/ mathematics connection, it would have been evident long ago. Why now? And, "cui bono?" == Johnny in OKC