Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Our Brain on Music: We need to do more than listen

.What’s The Size Of The Mozart Effect? The Jury Is In.

In a now well-known 1993 paper in Nature called “Music and spa­tial task per­for­mance”, Frances H. Rausch­er and her col­leagues report that par­tic­i­pants who were exposed to the first move­ment “alle­gro con spir­i­to” of the Mozart Sonata KV 448 for Two Pianos in D major scored sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er on stan­dard­ized tests of abstract/spatial rea­son­ing abil­i­ty than those who were instruct­ed to relax or those who just sat there in silence.

Even though the par­tic­i­pants in Rausch­er et al.‘s study were col­lege stu­dents, and they did­n’t admin­is­ter a full bat­tery of cog­ni­tive tests to prop­er­ly assess gen­er­al intel­li­gence, their find­ings trans­lat­ed into “play Mozart to your chil­dren and they will grow up smart.” A cot­tage indus­try was born.

Don Camp­bell cre­at­ed an online busi­ness sell­ing CDs that pur­port­ed­ly enable the buy­er to “dis­cov­er the trans­for­ma­tion­al pow­ers of music for health, edu­ca­tion, and well-being”, claim­ing that music is a “pow­er­ful cat­a­lyst for heal­ing, cre­ativ­i­ty, and devel­op­ment”. He even went fur­ther, claim­ing that “inno­v­a­tive and exper­i­men­tal uses of music and sound can improve lis­ten­ing dis­or­ders, dyslex­ia, atten­tion deficit dis­or­der, autism, and oth­er men­tal and phys­i­cal dis­or­ders and injuries”.

Oth­ers also hopped on The Mozart Effect band­wag­on, includ­ing the mak­ers of the UK best­seller “Baroque-a-bye Baby” CD, who claim that their “Slow Baroque music — 60 beats per min — same as moth­ers heart­beat, has a calm­ing effect on babies, while its math­e­mat­i­cal per­fec­tion and sym­me­try will stim­u­late your child’s brain.” Even the gov­er­nor of Geor­gia, Zell Miller, announced in 1998 that his state bud­get would include $105,000 a year to allow every new­born child in Geor­gia a chance to own and lis­ten to a record­ing of clas­si­cal music.

Make no doubt: lis­ten­ing to music, espe­cial­ly music that makes us feel good, does have salu­tary effects. Research does show that at least up to 10 min­utes after the music stops, there is improve­ment on some tests that are most rel­e­vant to music. There is even research show­ing that lis­ten­ing to music that makes us hap­py can also make every­one around us look hap­py.

The ques­tions though are a) whether it’s music that direct­ly makes us smarter, or the pos­i­tive mood the music puts us in and b) is there some­thing spe­cial about lis­ten­ing to clas­si­cal music over and above lis­ten­ing to Jay‑Z or Ras­cal Flats that puts us in a bet­ter state of mind for work­ing.

Since that orig­i­nal 1993 study, the major­i­ty of stud­ies look­ing at expo­sure to the Mozart sonata KV 448 showed rather weak enhance­ment of per­for­mance on spa­tial tasks com­pared to con­di­tions where par­tic­i­pants were exposed to non-musi­cal stim­uli or sat in silence for the same amount of time as it took to admin­is­ter the Mozart sonata (usu­al­ly 8 min­utes, 24 sec­onds). Research has also sug­gest­ed that it’s the pos­i­tive arousal that music affords rather than music in par­tic­u­lar that has tem­po­rary effects on cog­ni­tion.

When enough stud­ies on a top­ic have been done, it’s impor­tant to com­bine all the stud­ies and assess the over­all effect, a tech­nique called a “meta-analy­sis”. Some of the meta-analy­ses that have been con­duct­ed present con­tra­dic­to­ry results, how­ev­er.

Chabris (1999) and Het­lan (2000) both con­duct­ed a com­bined analy­sis of a num­ber of stud­ies but found dif­fer­ing results. Based on pub­lished stud­ies, Chabris found an effect size of d=0.14 (very small). They argue that the effects are very spe­cif­ic types of cog­ni­tive tasks and are explained neu­ropsy­cho­log­i­cal­ly by “enjoy­ment arousal”.

A lim­i­ta­tion of the Chabris study how­ev­er is that they includ­ed in their meta-analy­sis stud­ies that admin­is­tered abstract rea­son­ing tests as depen­dent mea­sure in addi­tion to spa­tial abil­i­ty tests. Also, their effect size is based on only 15 study effects, not a par­tic­u­lar­ly large num­ber for a meta-analy­sis.

Based on unpub­lished stud­ies (36 study effects), Het­lan (2000) found an effect size of d=0.46 (medi­um). They only includ­ed mea­sures of spa­tial abil­i­ty, how­ev­er. For their effect size esti­ma­tion, they also includ­ed stud­ies in which the musi­cal stim­uli that was admin­is­tered in the treat­ment con­di­tions were not con­fined to the Mozart sonata, but instead con­sist­ed of any kind of (sup­pos­ed­ly enhanc­ing) musi­cal stim­u­lus.

In fact, nei­ther of these meta-analy­ses includ­ed stud­ies that admin­is­tered the same Mozart sonata as Rausch­er et al. did, and more impor­tant­ly, nei­ther study assessed the poten­tial­ly con­found­ing influ­ence of pub­li­ca­tion bias. This is real­ly impor­tant since stud­ies that find an effect are more like­ly to get pub­lished where­as those that do not find an effect find tend to end up in the dust­bin much faster. This can give a skewed impres­sion of the true effect size.

Enter Jakob Piet­shnig and his col­leagues. In a recent­ly in press arti­cle in the jour­nal Intel­li­gence, Piet­shnig et al. present the results of what they claim is the biggest meta-analy­sis (near­ly 40 stud­ies, 104 inde­pen­dent sam­ples, and over 3000 par­tic­i­pants) ever con­duct­ed on the ques­tion of whether or not a Mozart effect exists. They hypoth­e­sized that there would be a sig­nif­i­cant influ­ence of pub­li­ca­tion bias on the over­all effect. What did they find?

1. Sam­ples exposed to the Mozart sonata KV 448 scored sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er on spa­tial tasks than sam­ples exposed to non-musi­cal stim­uli or no stim­u­lus at all (d= 0.37, p < .011).

2. Sam­ples exposed to the Mozart sonata KV 448 scored sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er on spa­tial tasks than sam­ples exposed to any oth­er kind of music (d=0.15, p = .02).

As for this small effect size, the researchers note that

this find­ing can be explained by poten­tial­ly dif­fer­ent­ly acti­vat­ing music. Since gen­er­al arousal affects cor­ti­cal acti­va­tion and thus per­for­mance on spa­tial tasks, sub­jects exposed to more arous­ing music are more like­ly to score high­er on spa­tial tasks (Thomp­son, Schel­len­berg, & Hus­sain, 2001). As musi­cal stim­uli oth­er than the Mozart sonata cov­ered a wide vari­ety of styles of music from pop­u­lar music to min­i­mal­is­tic music pieces, less arous­ing musi­cal stim­uli may have played a mod­er­at­ing role in task per­for­mance, thus result­ing in low­er scores in sam­ples exposed to oth­er musi­cal stim­uli than in sam­ples exposed to the Mozart sonata.”

3. Sam­ples exposed to any oth­er kind of music scored sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er on spa­tial tasks than sam­ples exposed to non-musi­cal stim­uli or not stim­u­lus at all (d=0.38).

4. There was strong evi­dence of pub­li­ca­tion bias for stud­ies that com­pared the Mozart sonata con­di­tion to a non-musi­cal or silence con­di­tion. In these par­tic­u­lar stud­ies, effect sizes for pub­lished stud­ies were high­er than for unpub­lished stud­ies “empha­siz­ing that stud­ies show­ing strong effects in expect­ed direc­tions tend to be pub­lished more often, quick­er, and more promi­nent­ly…”

5. Effect sizes of stud­ies that com­pared expo­sure to the Mozart sonata to no stim­u­lus at all were three times high­er among researchers affil­i­at­ed with the labs of Rausch­er or Ride­out than for pub­lished stud­ies per­formed by oth­er labs. The researchers do note that minor pro­ce­dur­al dif­fer­ences in stud­ies per­formed by dif­fer­ent labs could be the source of the dif­fer­ences. They point out Rausch­er and Shaw (1998), who empha­sized the neces­si­ty of exact repli­ca­tion of their orig­i­nal study design to observe the Mozart effect. Also, to be fair to Rausch­er, she is on record say­ing that the results of her orig­i­nal study have been “gross­ly mis­ap­plied and over-exag­ger­at­ed.” Nonethe­less, the find­ings of this large meta-analy­sis are inter­est­ing since they found this dif­fer­ence in effect among labs even after look­ing at oth­er pos­si­ble mod­er­at­ing vari­ables relat­ing to task pro­ce­dure.

The Jury Is In

The researchers con­clude:

This study clear­ly demon­strates that there is only lit­tle sup­port for a spe­cif­ic Mozart effect in pub­lished as well as in unpub­lished work. Although results indi­cate a pos­i­tive, sig­nif­i­cant effect of expo­sure to the Mozart sonata (KV 448) com­pared to no stim­u­lus at all on spa­tial task per­for­mance, observed effects were only small in size. More­over, expo­sure to oth­er musi­cal stim­uli com­pared to expo­sure to no stim­u­lus at all yield­ed a sig­nificant over­all effect of about the same size…On the whole, there is lit­tle left that would sup­port the notion of a spe­cif­ic enhance­ment of spa­tial task per­for­mance through expo­sure to the Mozart sonata KV 448.”

I think the jury is in on this one: The Mozart effect is weak, at best. Maybe the ques­tion can final­ly be put to rest.

Does this mean that music is not impor­tant? Not at all. Peo­ple derive great plea­sure from lis­ten­ing to music, and the ben­e­fits of being in a good mood for per­for­mance on any task can be quite ben­e­fi­cial, at least tem­porar­i­ly.

For more long-last­ing effects, how­ev­er, research shows that learn­ing how to make music is more impor­tant for pos­i­tive long-term changes than just lis­ten­ing to music. Music instruc­tion lit­er­al­ly changes the brain, pos­si­bly increas­ing the cor­pus cal­lo­sum (the bit of the brain that enables cross-talk between the two hemi­spheres of the brain). Music instruc­tion may increase work­ing mem­o­ry, and boost spe­cif­ic skills that are direct­ly relat­ed to music such as fine motor skill.

Lau­rel Train­or, a psy­chol­o­gist at McMas­ter Uni­ver­si­ty and her team of researchers have an ongo­ing active area of research where they have demon­strat­ed among a num­ber of stud­ies the far-reach­ing impact of music instruc­tion on the brain and cog­ni­tion. In a recent study, Lappe, Her­holz, Train­or, and Pan­tev (2008) musi­cal­ly trained two groups of non­mu­si­cians  over the course of 2 weeks. Peo­ple in the sen­so­ri­mo­tor-audi­to­ry con­di­tion learned to play a musi­cal sequence on the piano, where­as the peo­ple in the audi­to­ry group lis­tened to and made judge­ments about the music that had been played by par­tic­i­pants in the oth­er group. Both groups sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fered in their cor­ti­cal respons­es after train­ing. The sen­so­ri­mo­tor-audi­to­ry group, how­ev­er, showed a greater enlarge­ment of the audi­to­ry cor­tex after train­ing com­pared with the audi­to­ry group, indi­cat­ing that there was greater enhance­ment of musi­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tions in the audi­to­ry cor­tex when there is sen­so­ri­mo­tor-audi­to­ry train­ing com­pared to mere audi­to­ry train­ing. Their results sug­gest not only that sen­so­ri­mo­tor and audi­to­ry sys­tems are con­nect­ed, but also that sen­so­ri­mo­tor-audi­to­ry train­ing can cause plas­tic re-orga­ni­za­tion­al changes in the audi­to­ry cor­tex over and above the changes that occur with just audi­to­ry train­ing alone.

But that’s just one exam­ple of the ben­e­fits of musi­cal train­ing. In gen­er­al, music instruc­tion, as com­pared to just lis­ten­ing to music may have long last­ing effects because the skills that are learned when tak­ing music lessons have real world trans­fer. Accord­ing to Train­or, the very nature of learn­ing to play an instru­ment poten­tial­ly has many gen­er­al ben­e­fits:

The child has to hold an instru­ment, posi­tion his hands, lis­ten to the sound the teacher’s mak­ing, repro­duce that sound, hold in mind the sound and com­pare it, assess pitch and sound qual­i­ty, and change that if nec­es­sary. All that takes a tremen­dous amount of atten­tion. It trains kids how to accom­plish things, and it trains mem­o­ry as well. All that is going to make you bet­ter at learn­ing.”

The point is this: there is no fast track to smarts. Long-term ben­e­fits require long-term train­ing. Lis­ten­ing to music can be ben­e­fi­cial tem­porar­i­ly while you’re work­ing, espe­cial­ly if it makes you feel good and inspires and moti­vates you to work hard­er, but be very skep­ti­cal of any­one who claims that 8 min­utes of any­thing will have long-last­ing effects on intel­li­gence.

I’ll leave the last word to The Jour­nal Times Online:

“If you want music to sharp­en your sens­es, boost your abil­i­ty to focus and per­haps even improve your mem­o­ry, the lat­est word from sci­ence is you’ll need more than hype and a loaded iPOD.”


  • Chabris, C. F. (1999). Pre­lude or requiem for the ‘Mozart effect’? Nature, 400, 826- 827.
  • Het­land, L. (2000). Lis­ten­ing to music enhances spa­tial-tem­po­ral rea­son­ing: Evi­dence for the Mozart effect. Jour­nal of Aes­thet­ic Edu­ca­tion, 34,105–148.
  • Lappe, C., Her­holz, S.C., Train­or, L.J., & Pan­tev, C. (2008). Cor­ti­cal plas­tic­i­ty induced by short-term uni­modal and mul­ti­modal musi­cal train­ing. The Jour­nal of Neu­ro­science, 28, 9632–9639.
  • Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & For­mann, A.K. (2010). Mozart effect-Schmozart: A meta-analy­sis. Intel­li­gence, doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.03.001.
  • Rausch­er, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spa­tial task per­for­mance. Nature, 365, 611.
  • Rausch­er, F. H., & Shaw, G. L. (1998). Key com­po­nents of the Mozart effect. Per­cep­tu­al and Motor Skills, 86, 835?841.
  • Thomp­son, W. F., Schel­len­berg, E. G., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence, 12, 248–251.

—-  Scott Bar­ry Kauf­man, Ph.D. is a cog­ni­tive psy­chol­o­gist and writer based in New York City. His lat­est Sharp­Brains arti­cles are:

Take that Nap! It May Boost Your Learn­ing Capac­i­ty Among Oth­er Good Things.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. Oscar says:

    Thank­ful­ly some­one has put some thought into the Mozart effect. I always doubt­ed that mear­ly lis­ten­ing to a cer­tain genre of music mag­i­cal­ly made you more intel­li­gent.

  2. I have been work­ing in the field of prac­ti­cal neu­rosience for near­ly 20 years. I have per­son­al­ly expe­ri­enced and observed the effect of clas­si­cal music to enter a “brain state” where you focus, con­cen­trate and have clear think­ing with a min­i­mum of emo­tions. The effect does not last long after the music is dis­con­tin­ued. Some peo­ple lis­ten to clas­si­cal music before hav­ing to learn and/perform; the effect is short lived but nev­er­the­less expe­ri­enced. I pre­fer to use head­phones when cre­at­ing, writ­ing, study­ing and mem­o­riz­ing. It real­ly helps. I think it is won­der­ful and some­what mirac­u­lous that the “Mozart Effect” works at all. I agree that the claims of long term intel­li­gence boost is not sup­port­ed and it’s a dis­er­vice to mis­lead peo­ple and cast a shad­ow of doubt on the pow­er of music. I would like to see more peo­ple exper­i­ment with music and decide for them­selves what works, for how long and the out­comes. I think peo­ple will be pleas­ant­ly surprised.It’s safe, it’s fun and it’s quite an adven­ture.

    Stephen Hager

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)