"Mozart Effect" Has A Molecular Basis

pingbak writes "The 'Mozart effect,' where students were observed performing better after being exposed to a Mozart sonata, appears to have a basis in reality. According to New Scientist, two researchers have found the underlying biomechanics in mice stimulated by the effect. They don't know the details why Mozart's sonatas really cause this effect, but they know where to look. Guess I'm going to have to switch Shoutcast streams now..."

Comments

Underlying biomechanics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the opposite. They seem to have found some end results of this process in some gene expression. How the hell listening to Mozart could cause this has yet to be explained.

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who listen to Mozart score better on their exams than those who listen to Britney Spears. I'm sure this is all about some kind of mysterious electromagnetic interaction with synapse electric fields and not about better taste being highly correlated with higher intelligence. When those rats start quoting Shakespeare, get back to me.

Re:Duh.

[sydb]

I agree that people who like Mozart are inately superior; I myself enjoy his works.

However I'm pretty sure my performance does in fact change when I listen to Mozart. In fact I find the two best things to listen to, which seem to promote logical thinking and motivation to act, are Mozart (and similar music) and noise (like Aube).

I suspect they have different modes of operation.

Mozart's music is very well structured, like a good program, so the mind can latch on to the motifs therein and engage in the rythmn of the music without an overriding desire to get up and dance.

Noise encourages the imagination gently, by providing a relatively blank canvas, but, given decent composition, also a sense of rythmn in the sound.

I find music with lyrics is useless as an adjunct to work as the words are distracting. Most other types of music are dance-provoking.

Mozart and Noise are great!

Re:Duh.

[Ieshan]

If you actually read the study, it has nothing to do about musical preference.

Subjects in the human study were recruited randomly and placed into one of three conditions: Mozart, No Music, Popular Music.

They performed better under the 'Mozart' condition.

Re:Duh.

[outlier]

There have also been a number of studies that challenge some of the claims of the Mozart effect. For example:

"Listening to Mozart does not improve children's spatial ability: Final curtains for the Mozart effect" McKelvie, Pippa; Low, Jason; British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol 20(2), Jun 2002. pp. 241-258.

"The mystery of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate." Steele, Kenneth M.; Bass, Karen E.; Crook, Melissa D.; Psychological Science, Vol 10(4), Jul 1999. pp. 366-369.

"Failure to confirm the Rauscher and Shaw description of recovery of the Mozart effect." Steele, Kenneth M.; Brown, Joshua D.; Stoecker, Jaimily A.; Perceptual & Motor Skills, Vol 88(3, Pt 1), Jun 1999. pp. 843-848.

"The Mozart effect: An artifact of preference." Nantais, Kristin M.; Schellenberg, E. Glenn; Psychological Science, Vol 10(4), Jul 1999. pp. 370-373.

Abstract: Replicated and extended the findings that were reported by F. H. Rauscher, G. L. Shaw, and K. N. Ky (1993, 1995) about the Mozart effect, which indicates that spatial-temporal abilities are enhanced after listening to music composed by Mozart. In Exp 1, performance on a spatial-temporal task was better after 56 college students listened to a piece composed by Mozart or by Schubert than after they sat in silence. 28 college students participated in Exp 2, which found that the advantage for the music condition disappeared when the control condition consisted of a narrated story instead of silence. Results suggest that performance was a function of listeners' preference (music or story), with better performance following the preferred condition. (emphasis added)

"The Mozart effect: Not learning from history". Jones, Stephanie M.; Zigler, Edward; Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol 23(3), May-Jun 2002. pp. 355-372.

Abstract: This paper critiques the links between recent reports on the impact of early experience on the developing brain and proposed policies and interventions for young children. Using the "Mozart effect" as a contemporary example, as well as several examples from history, the case is made that brain research is being misappropriated to the service of misguided, "quick fix" solutions to more complicated, systemic issues. The paper concludes with a brief summary of research that, by contrast, illustrates the substantive contribution of high quality, intensive, multidomain interventions to early cognitive and social development. (emphasis added)

Of course, this doesn't really say anything about the current study. It may very well be that some features of Mozart's work (or classical music, or music, or certain types of sounds) do have distinct effects on gene expression at the hippocampus. It may also be that lots of other stimuli have similar effects. Take this, and the whole "Mozart Effect" thing with a very large grain of salt.

Anything's better than rap

[billcopc]

I'd much rather see a Honda Wigger blasting Mozart in his car, than the wretched "Niggas N Hoes" shake-fest. If it has any positive effect on his intelligence that's a much needed bonus.

But I think these research efforts would be better invested towards designing rap music that kills its listener.

Re:Not likely

[Bastian]

That would be a violation of the first law of car stereo dynamics: The price of the car stereo system is inversely proportional to the quality of music that it plays.

(On a side note, I'm curious if there's a way to create some sort of HERF gun that reliably disables subwoofers but nothing else. Is this even theoretically possible?)

Overly compressed?

[Kaali]

Maybe it has something to do with overly compressing music, as seems to be the case on 98% of modern records. In classical recordings the music has it's ups and downs volume-wise, on modern recordings the volume is almost flat. Maybe our brains get the energy for listening to progressing sounds of pitch, rhytmical qualities and volume? I trust that these scientists tested on music that is not loop-based, but progressive.. but did they test on a record that is not overly compressed?

Re:Overly compressed?

[SW6]

So I guess a .WAV file would be better than an MP3, which would be better than OGG? Too much compression? :^)

I might have guessed that Slashdot readers immediately think of reduced file sizes when somebody mentions "compression" and "audio" in the same sentence.

Compression when applied to (analogue) audio means changing the dynamic range of the signal - i.e. making quiet parts louder - so as to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The Dolby B system for audio cassettes should be known by many. Such compression usually includes a decompression step to recreate the original signal. This is why tape players without Dolby decoders will have a different sound - because you're still listening to the compressed signal.

Compression can also be used to make the dynamic range "flat", i.e. that the signal has a constant average volume. Many radio stations compress like this so that they sound the loudest on the dial. However, the music tends to sound terrible as a result. Such compression is destructive because everything is made equally loud and a decompressor cannot determine the original volume to recreate the original signal.

So, the former kind of compression is fine, even desirable, whereas the latter is not. Try not to confuse them, but if somebody does, they're probably on about the latter ;)

Form? Structure? What?

[wafwot]

As a composer and an on-going student of music (you never really stop learning), I feel I should comment on this.

Mozart's music may be extremely structured, but it was also innovative because of it's lack of structure. If you listen closely, you can see that Mozart would write out "improvised" sections, as his best asset was his ability to improvise just about anything. Calling a simple chord progression structure is like saying, "This pile of mud is a house."

A lot of new music, and I don't mean anything you can find on the radio, is highly structured. Minimalists, such as Philip Glass and Steve Reich, build their music off of a few (or many) simple rhythmic/melodic elements that are repeated.

In all honesty, there may not be any logical explanation. Have they tried other recordings of this piece? Or just one? What about some of his other piano sonatas? Or maybe Beethoven's Piano Sonata in Cminor (which was based, nearly measure by measure on Mozart's Piano Sonata in Cminor)? What about Bach? Or Haydn?

Before they can make any real conclusions, I think they have a metric butt-ton of research to do.