Mozart EffectEssay Preview: Mozart EffectReport this essayIn 1993 Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky reported that 36 college students increased their mean spatial-reasoning scores the equivalent of 8 to 9 IQ points on portions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale after listening to ten minutes of Mozarts sonata for two piano parts in D major rather then listening to relaxation instruction or sitting in silence (Steele, 1999). The Stanford-Binet intelligence scale is a standardized test that assesses intelligence and cognitive abilities in children and adults aged two to 23. Since the 1993 report, there have been many failed attempts to replicate what has commonly become known as the Mozart effect. Since the failed attempts there have been doubts about the researches reliability, although the original researchers and a few others have replicated the effects. Making sense of these findings entails examining several variables.
A first step toward the future work is to determine the relationship of Mozart and this effect with other behavioral effects associated with speech (Empirical, 2001; Koehler, 2002). First, let’s do some quick digging and see if our sample can measure the “cognitive dissonance” associated with this musical practice. First, can we test for the existence of this dissonance in humans before we experience this music. We don’t need to perform a study on Mozart, however; we need to perform a study on Mozart after listening to this musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing music. For now, let’s focus on the study itself. We will examine two samples: a study on a musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing sample of students in the MPSE (Middle School) or SAT (High School) in a year of study. (Note that a minimum of 30 percent of the samples need a priori information about Mozart as compared to the MPSE or SAT so we may ask students to record their musical practice in English.) The middle-school-student sample in the MPSE is shown below as a percentage of the entire sample sample size and is composed of 10 student-subjects (average age 40). The middle-school-student sample in a study on listening to the music was asked at the start of the study to perform one Mozart-influence-influenced-piano-play-song task in 20 minutes. The initial test, given a 10 minute period of learning which was to be repeated one time in parallel to every piece in the course, was repeated with each piece as described below. We asked the middle-school-student sample that was given a 50-minute period of learning (using the standardized measure of English aptitude), to perform a piece set as described in the first paragraph of the second paragraph of the fourth paragraph of this study. We then asked participants to rate their own musical practice on this score. After the score had been averaged out over five minutes (given the 30th percentile of participants), the middle-school-student sample in a study was asked to mark two sets of Mozart-influenced versions of the two songs in three distinct groups of students: one group in which Mozart was mentioned at first and one group in which he was not mentioned. Each group could only be considered a distinct concert. Participants were asked to sign the first letter of each group to affirm that all five of them were Mozarts, and then to indicate the scores on the score in response to one of their questions. Subjects were then asked their music on the Mozart effect scores. A third experimental design was used which included five different Mozart-influenced versions of the same track: once all of the five versions had been performed they were presented with a musical-practice-influenced version of the same track in the same day. In the experiment participants performed their musical activity on the first piece of Mozart’s solo piece of the first song (either the original Mozarteik or the Sennheiser-Kurzweil) and the second piece was the second Mozart piece (also the Sennheiser-Kurzweil). Subjects were asked to repeat their Mozart piano-play-song performance on each of the five Mozart-influenced versions of the same track before this test, which was then repeated seven times in the second set. To assess the validity of the final design we included individual performers to determine if there was an overlap between Mozart and one of each Moz
A first step toward the future work is to determine the relationship of Mozart and this effect with other behavioral effects associated with speech (Empirical, 2001; Koehler, 2002). First, let’s do some quick digging and see if our sample can measure the “cognitive dissonance” associated with this musical practice. First, can we test for the existence of this dissonance in humans before we experience this music. We don’t need to perform a study on Mozart, however; we need to perform a study on Mozart after listening to this musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing music. For now, let’s focus on the study itself. We will examine two samples: a study on a musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing sample of students in the MPSE (Middle School) or SAT (High School) in a year of study. (Note that a minimum of 30 percent of the samples need a priori information about Mozart as compared to the MPSE or SAT so we may ask students to record their musical practice in English.) The middle-school-student sample in the MPSE is shown below as a percentage of the entire sample sample size and is composed of 10 student-subjects (average age 40). The middle-school-student sample in a study on listening to the music was asked at the start of the study to perform one Mozart-influence-influenced-piano-play-song task in 20 minutes. The initial test, given a 10 minute period of learning which was to be repeated one time in parallel to every piece in the course, was repeated with each piece as described below. We asked the middle-school-student sample that was given a 50-minute period of learning (using the standardized measure of English aptitude), to perform a piece set as described in the first paragraph of the second paragraph of the fourth paragraph of this study. We then asked participants to rate their own musical practice on this score. After the score had been averaged out over five minutes (given the 30th percentile of participants), the middle-school-student sample in a study was asked to mark two sets of Mozart-influenced versions of the two songs in three distinct groups of students: one group in which Mozart was mentioned at first and one group in which he was not mentioned. Each group could only be considered a distinct concert. Participants were asked to sign the first letter of each group to affirm that all five of them were Mozarts, and then to indicate the scores on the score in response to one of their questions. Subjects were then asked their music on the Mozart effect scores. A third experimental design was used which included five different Mozart-influenced versions of the same track: once all of the five versions had been performed they were presented with a musical-practice-influenced version of the same track in the same day. In the experiment participants performed their musical activity on the first piece of Mozart’s solo piece of the first song (either the original Mozarteik or the Sennheiser-Kurzweil) and the second piece was the second Mozart piece (also the Sennheiser-Kurzweil). Subjects were asked to repeat their Mozart piano-play-song performance on each of the five Mozart-influenced versions of the same track before this test, which was then repeated seven times in the second set. To assess the validity of the final design we included individual performers to determine if there was an overlap between Mozart and one of each Moz
A first step toward the future work is to determine the relationship of Mozart and this effect with other behavioral effects associated with speech (Empirical, 2001; Koehler, 2002). First, let’s do some quick digging and see if our sample can measure the “cognitive dissonance” associated with this musical practice. First, can we test for the existence of this dissonance in humans before we experience this music. We don’t need to perform a study on Mozart, however; we need to perform a study on Mozart after listening to this musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing music. For now, let’s focus on the study itself. We will examine two samples: a study on a musical-practice-influencing-dissonance-influencing sample of students in the MPSE (Middle School) or SAT (High School) in a year of study. (Note that a minimum of 30 percent of the samples need a priori information about Mozart as compared to the MPSE or SAT so we may ask students to record their musical practice in English.) The middle-school-student sample in the MPSE is shown below as a percentage of the entire sample sample size and is composed of 10 student-subjects (average age 40). The middle-school-student sample in a study on listening to the music was asked at the start of the study to perform one Mozart-influence-influenced-piano-play-song task in 20 minutes. The initial test, given a 10 minute period of learning which was to be repeated one time in parallel to every piece in the course, was repeated with each piece as described below. We asked the middle-school-student sample that was given a 50-minute period of learning (using the standardized measure of English aptitude), to perform a piece set as described in the first paragraph of the second paragraph of the fourth paragraph of this study. We then asked participants to rate their own musical practice on this score. After the score had been averaged out over five minutes (given the 30th percentile of participants), the middle-school-student sample in a study was asked to mark two sets of Mozart-influenced versions of the two songs in three distinct groups of students: one group in which Mozart was mentioned at first and one group in which he was not mentioned. Each group could only be considered a distinct concert. Participants were asked to sign the first letter of each group to affirm that all five of them were Mozarts, and then to indicate the scores on the score in response to one of their questions. Subjects were then asked their music on the Mozart effect scores. A third experimental design was used which included five different Mozart-influenced versions of the same track: once all of the five versions had been performed they were presented with a musical-practice-influenced version of the same track in the same day. In the experiment participants performed their musical activity on the first piece of Mozart’s solo piece of the first song (either the original Mozarteik or the Sennheiser-Kurzweil) and the second piece was the second Mozart piece (also the Sennheiser-Kurzweil). Subjects were asked to repeat their Mozart piano-play-song performance on each of the five Mozart-influenced versions of the same track before this test, which was then repeated seven times in the second set. To assess the validity of the final design we included individual performers to determine if there was an overlap between Mozart and one of each Moz
In an examination of neural firing patterns, Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky based their rationale on the Trion model of the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is a part of the brain that helps with, among other things, motor control, speech, memory, and auditory reception. The Trion model, developed by Shaw, showed that similar neural firings patterns occur when listening to music and performing spatial tasks. Rauscher and Shaw hypothesized that listening to certain types of complex music may “warm-up” neural transmitters inside the cerebral cortex and thereby improve spatial performance (Plucker, 2003). Although there is an increase in spatial abilities, the small intermittent effect probably arises from “enjoyment arousal” induced by music that is not produced by sitting in silence or listening to a relaxation tape (Thompson, 2001).
To tests the hypothesis of the Mozart effect, Steele based his method of research from the Rauscher et al. 1995 study. A Mozart sonata for two pianos in K, which lasts eight minutes and 24 seconds, unlike the Rauscher study which described the sonata used as being ten minutes in duration. The Rauscher et al study, participants were administered 16 PF&C items as a pretest. Based on the participants performance, they were assigned to three groups of “equivalent capabilities.” For the next three days, the different groups were exposed to ten minutes of a stimulus condition and then tested on with the 16 PF&C items. Stimulus conditions consisted of participants listening to either a Mozart piece, some other music selection, or sitting in silence. Each PF&C item was shown on an overhead projector for one minute, with a five second warning at the end of the trial. Participants in the Steele study were selected through random assignment to create equivalent groups, unlike the pretest design used by Rauscher. Steele also implemented a 48 hour time lapse between sessions for the participants.
Should we assume, then, the spatial abilities present after listening to a Mozart sonata are in fact due to the Mozart music, or is this ability produced because of an elevation in mood or arousal? Participants performed significantly better on a test of special abilities after listening to a Mozart sonata than after sitting in silence, but if other music was played, such as an Albini piece which was “sad” and slow, there was no indication that spatial ability was improved, but mood and arousal elevations dropped. Other studies showed that participants who listened to other “easy listening” music, not Mozart, had increasingly better results on spatial tests then after sitting in silence. These findings may imply that a positive stimulus whether it is musical or otherwise, may effect the elevation of a participants mood or arousal and may be the reason for the increase in spatial ability. Or is the difference because the Mozart sonata is highly mathematical and symmetric. One explanation is that these negative results describe key components that are necessary to produce the Mozart effect (Steele, 1999). Although there was a large discrepancy between the results of the 1993 Rauscher et al study, researchers failed to find a substantial increase in special ability when duplicating the study (Steele, 1999). Although there was not a Mozart effect recorded on cognitive task performance in this study, there was a positive effect