Talk:Mozart effect

Source of more research studies
I started aggregating research studies related to music, cognitive neuroscience, and more if anyone wishes to include more research on my blog at http://wwww.wikyblog.com/CynthiaWunsch. I don't feel comfortable editing this page to include them but they are there with abstracts and citations if anyone thinks any are worth adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.70.37 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm correcting the New York Times... on the basis of guesswork
For the record: The New York Times article I cite, "Georgia's Governor Seeks Musical Start for Babies," Kevin Sack, The New York Times, January 15, 1998 p. A12, quoting Zell Miller, actually quotes him as saying:
 * "No one questions that listening to music at a very early age affects the spatial, temporal reasoning that underlies math and engineering and even chess."

"Spatial, temporal reasoning" with a comma doesn't make sense. On the other hand, researchers and popularizers frequently use the term "spatial-temporal reasoning" or "spatio-temporal reasoning" in connection with the "Mozart effect." It is so plausible that Miller said "spatial-temporal" and that it was mis-transcribed by ear as "spatial, temporal" that I'm going to make the correction. Or corruption, as the case may be.

Yeah, I know... it's a recognized principle of textual analysis that the version of a text that doesn't make sense is much more likely to be the authentic one than the version that does. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of handling of trademark issue
I've put a short disclaimer saying simply
 * NOTE: any trademarks mentioned on this page belong to their owners

to acknowledge that the phrase "Mozart effect" has been trademarked. I don't use a trademark symbol within the text, because a) the phrase was coined by researchers Rauscher and Shaw, and b) I notice that most press and other references to it simply use the phrase in quotation marks. I'm uncertain of the boundaries of trademark law, but since we are not referring specifically to any of Don Campbell's products that bear that trademark, nor are we selling related or competing products ourselves, I don't think there's any need at all to use the trademark symbol. I'm not even sure there's any real need for the disclaimer.

IANAL. I do not know what I'm doing. These are the reasons why I did what I did. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the trademark.gov search engine, there is no registered trademark for the Mozart Effect. Since there is no reference supporting the existence of the trademark, I am removing that content from the article.


 * If anyone has a reference showing this is a valid trademark, please go ahead and re-add the info I'm removing, along with the reference. --Parzival418 Hello 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

More research
Effects of listening to Mozart and Bach on the performance of a mathematical test. Bridgett, David J.; Cuevas, Jacqueline; Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol 90(3,Pt2), Jun 2000. pp. 1171-1175.

Abstract.Assessed the effect of listening to Mozart or Bach on the immediate performance of a 10-min mathematical test. Ss were 61 18-50 yr old undergraduates, who were randomly assigned to a control, a Mozart, or a Bach group. Ss were then administered a mathematics pretest, listened to a selection of music for 10 min, and were then administered a mathematics posttest. The test was constructed to be similar to items taken from the University Mathematics Placement Examination. Analysis indicated no significant effect on the immediate mathematics test when Ss listened to 10 min of either Mozart or Bach. These findings suggest caution in measuring differences in various cognitive tasks as indicating increases in intelligence scores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesbit (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 July 2006

Cleanup
I believe the article needs cleanup in order to resemble the formal tone expected from a real encyclopedic article. It should be better organized in sections (in the current article, the section "Don Campbell's 1997 book, trademark, and subsequent promotion" should be merged into the History section to provide a more clear message).

I also think the article needs to be expanded with the sources cited in the References section, especially this one: *Kenneth M. Steele


 * And to clarify the respective shares of Tomatis and Campbell. --Pjacobi 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've attempted cleanup, and added sections for each researcher's findings with refs., so that readers can judge for themselves and going for a neutral point of view. I think the article still needs some help.  Feedback is welcome.  ♫ Cricket02 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice the needs-header marker at the top of the page, but the first section (The Mozart Effect) is essentially the same as the title of the page: wouldn't it make sense to just delete the first === marker and make *that* the leadin section? SJFriedl (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed section
The section "Limitations of the effect" all seems to be Point of View to me and Original Research. I have removed it and copying here for reference. ♫ Cricket02 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

-Limitation of the effect- The size, nature, and very existence of the Mozart effect are disputed. But assuming that measurable effect of complex music on cognitive function actually can be demonstrated, two limitations or misconceptions should be noted.

First, popular presentations of the Mozart effect almost always tie it to "intelligence"; thus, as noted above, Alex Ross's comment that "listening to Mozart actually makes you smarter," and Zell Miller's asking the Georgia legislature whether they "felt smarter" after he played them some Beethoven.

Rauscher herself, one of the original researchers, has disclaimed this idea. In her 1999 reply to Chabris and Steele et al. she wrote, "Our results on the effects of listening to Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major (K. 448) on spatial–temporal task performance have generated much interest but several misconceptions, many of which are reflected in attempts to replicate the research". The comments by Chabris and Steele et al. echo the most common of these, that listening to Mozart enhances intelligence. We made no such claim. The effect is limited to spatial–temporal tasks involving mental imagery and temporal ordering.

Second, it is frequently suggested or stated that exposure to the right kind of music in childhood has a lasting, beneficial effect. (Circa 1999 the state of Florida created a regulation requiring toddlers in state-run schools to listen to classical music every day).

On programs like these, Rauscher commented in 1999, "I don't think it can hurt. I'm all for exposing children to wonderful cultural experiences. But I do think the money could be better spent on music education programs".

lead
Provided a lead and so removed the tag. The lead will need to be changed as the rest of the article is updated though, particularly when the controversy is included in the body of the article--Vannin (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-order
I propose a re-ordering:

1. Tomatis

2. Rauscher and Shaw's study, combining the part under research with the other section.

3. Popularization as in Campbell's book

4. Consequences - governor of georgia etc

5. criticism.

I think not only with this make it more wiki style, it will make it a more interesting read --Vannin (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Glad to see this article improved. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Cricket - thanks for the encouragement! I've re-ordered the material, and I think this will make it easier to go through each section to improve it further--Vannin (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking much better. The section "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine" has to do with the epilepsy factor so maybe that section can be removed and worked into the text instead?  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense--Vannin (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring some earlier material
"Limitations of the effect" is legitimate; it's referenced, it is an accurate statement of what researchers have said about the nature of the effect. It is important that Rauscher herself has stated that the popular version of the theory is a misconception.

It falls into the category of "facts about opinions," which have always been acceptable. Rauscher is a reliable source for her own opinions, and Rausher's opinions are relevant to the subject matter.

I'm restoring part of an early version of the lead paragraph, because the phrase is used in multiple senses. The genuine research version is that it can evoke short-term enhancement of limited kinds of mental functioning. The popular version is that it enhances intelligence. And the extraordinarily wide-ranging claim of Don Campbell is that it enhances just about everything but the kitchen sink. The fact that the term has been trademarked, ridiculous and regrettable as it is, needs to be mentioned, and early in the article.

Now, anyone you can find a reliable source that says that the popular meaning is a misuse of the term, and that Don Campbell's meaning is beyond misuse... or if there is a restrictive definition of the term in a dictionary of psychology or the like... that should be added. But the term is widely used in the broader senses, and that fact shouldn't be removed.


 * Note: I just found a definition in a dictionary of neurology and cited it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And as far as I know nobody has said that the effect is specifically tied to Mozart, i.e. that everything by Mozart, and only music by Mozart, has the effect. The article even mentions a study showing that a piece of music by Yanni evokes the effect. I assume researchers just continue to use Mozart because it's the music that was used in earlier research. It's hard to believe that similar music in a similar style by Mozart's contemporaries wouldn't have a similar effect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing scientific articles
I recommend that people not attempt to describe scientific articles, and should never edit existing descriptions, unless they have considerable background with, and preferably experience publishing in, peer reviewed scientific journals. Otherwise, the entry just looks unprofessional. For example, the description beginning "Another experiment that agrees with the claim was made by Bellarmine College. To make sure the Mozart effect was consistent, The Department of Psychology at Bellarmine College tested the spatial reasoning of the participants in...." should be rewritten by someone who knows that research, and can write using a conventional scientific style (this is not intended as a harsh criticism of who ever wrote that description - just a suggestion that it needs work). I have edited the description of the Thompson, Husain, and Schellenberg (2001) study (which was somehow written as Tomson, 2001) so that it has fewer errors and is consistent with the conventions of scientific writing, but some of the other descriptions also need revising. Be very selective about what to include. There are thousands of studies of the Mozart effect; but only the influential ones should be mentioned. If you type in the name of the article in google scholar and it comes up with a "citations" of fewer than at least 5, then I don't think it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomps95 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
This article is another proof that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.231.74 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Requesting an article Ed Wood's legacy's effects on capitalism and Ethical problems of producing clones of world dictators 87.110.241.107 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Inaccessible Citations
Several of the citations listed are obtainable only through seeking membership in a professional society, or through purchase of restricted items. It seems that the goal of Wiki should be to have citations as easily available as possible, to as many people as possible. This would argue against the use of sources available only for a fee or through restricted sources. If an on-line link doesn't go directly to a copy of the source, or provide sufficient information to obtain that source from a library, I would suggest that such links be deleted and/or replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious appeal
the fact that the music used in the study was by Mozart, had an obvious appeal to those who valued this music

It may be obvious, but it still is point of view and original research. The fact is, that it also has an obvious appeal to those who do not even know this music (Rauscher, quoted here, p. 73).

presented this as the final piece of evidence that Mozart has dethroned Beethoven as "the world's greatest composer"

What the hell has poor Ludwig to do with all this? --Actormusicus (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)