"Mozart Effect" Has A Molecular Basis 88
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..."
Re:Mozart can't be that special... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, other studies have found any stimulating (fast) music works. Certain people still like to pretend it's an endorcement of classical music.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Overly compressed? (Score:3, Informative)
But seriously, I agree with you. There are human aspects to music performance, the rhythm of the bow on a violin, the concordance of keys being hit on a piano, that are no longer limitations on the production of music using a synthesizer.
It's a well known effect of rhythm to induce hypnotic states that is used by revival preachers all the time, while it may be they don't know how they do what they do, but that they have a "feel" for what works. Mozart could easily have had just such a "feel" for what positively effected people. Remember that he started writing in the Baroque period, where mathematical precision and principles were being explored in music. See Bach for instance.
I was listening to the closing theme for Full Metal Alchemist, and I realized that right at the beginning of the song is a scale sequence that climbed well beyond any physical instrument I've ever heard of. It was a very eery effect, still perfectly in tune but just plain *wrong* to my ear. I have heard several performances of Baroque by modern artists who "interperate" the rhythm, and that too just sounds so *wrong*, so imprecise and chaotic compared to how it was written to be played.
Just musing.
Bob-
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Overly compressed? (Score:5, Informative)
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 ;)
Re:Deaf as a Doornail (Score:2, Informative)
Re:such a boring choice! (Score:2, Informative)