Editing Mozart effect (section)

== Subsequent research and meta-analyses ==
While some supportive reports have been published,<ref>{{cite journal|author=Wilson, T., Brown, T. |title=Reexamination of the effect of Mozart's music on spatial task performance|journal=The Journal of Psychology|volume=131|issue=4|pages=365–370|doi=10.1080/00223989709603522|year=2010}}</ref> studies with positive results have tended to be associated with any form of music that has energetic and positive emotional qualities.<ref name="thompson">{{cite journal|author1=Thompson, W.F. |author2=Schellenberg, E.G. |author3=Husain, G. |title=Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect|journal=Psychological Science|volume=12|issue=3|pages=248–51|pmid=11437309|year=2001|doi=10.1111/1467-9280.00345|s2cid=17641225}}</ref><ref name="Husain">{{cite journal|author=Husain, G., Thompson, W.F. & Schellenberg, E.G. |title=Effects of musical tempo and mode on arousal, mood, and spatial abilities: Re-examination of the "Mozart effect"|journal=Music Perception|volume=20|issue=2|pages=151|doi=10.1525/mp.2002.20.2.151|year=2002}}</ref> Moreover, the intellectual benefits of enhanced mood and arousal are not restricted to spatial-temporal reasoning, but extend to speed of processing and [[creative problem solving]].<ref name="Ilie">{{cite journal|author=Ilie, G., & Thompson, W.F. |year=2011|title= Experiential and cognitive changes following seven minutes exposure to music and speech|journal= Music Perception|volume= 28|issue=3|pages= 247–264|doi=10.1525/mp.2011.28.3.247}}</ref> Among children, some studies suggest no effect on IQ or spatial ability,<ref>{{cite journal|year=2002|doi=10.1348/026151002166433|title=Listening to Mozart does not improve children's spatial ability: Final curtains for the Mozart effect|journal=British Journal of Developmental Psychology|volume=20|issue=2|pages=241|last1 = McKelvie|first1 = Pippa|last2=Low|first2=Jason}}</ref> whereas others suggest that the effect can be elicited with energetic popular music that the children enjoy.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Schellenberg, E.G., & Hallam, S. |title=Music listening and cognitive abilities in 10 and 11 year olds: The Blur effect|journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences|volume=1060|pages=202–9|pmid=16597767|year=2005|issue=1|doi=10.1196/annals.1360.013|bibcode=2005NYASA1060..202S|s2cid=9278012|url=http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1507375/1/SchellenbergHallam2006Music202.pdf}}</ref> The weight of subsequent evidence supports either a null effect, or short-term effects related to increases in mood and arousal, with mixed results published after the initial report in ''Nature''.<ref name="bridgett">{{cite journal|title=Effects of listening to Mozart and Bach on the performance of a mathematical test|pmid=10939064|last=Bridgett |first=D.J.|author2=Cuevas, J.|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|volume=90|issue=3 Pt 2|year=2000 |pages=1171–1175|doi=10.2466/pms.2000.90.3c.1171|s2cid=35762220}}</ref>

In 1999  a major challenge was raised to the existence of the Mozart effect by two teams of researchers.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Chabris | first1 = Christopher F.| title = Prelude or requiem for the 'Mozart effect'? | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]]| volume = 400 | issue = 6747 | pages = 826–827| year = 1999 | doi = 10.1038/23608 | pmid =  10476958| bibcode = 1999Natur.400..826C| s2cid = 898161}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Steele | first1 = K. M.| last2 = Bella | first2 = S. D.| last3 = Peretz | first3 = I.| last4 = Dunlop | first4 = T.| last5 = Dawe | first5 = L. A.| last6 = Humphrey | first6 = G. K.| last7 = Shannon | first7 = R. A.| last8 = Kirby | first8 = J. L.| last9 = Olmstead | first9 = C. G.| title = Prelude or requiem for the 'Mozart effect'? | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 400 | issue = 6747 | pages = 827–828| doi = 10.1038/23611 | year = 1999 | pmid =  10476959| bibcode = 1999Natur.400..827S| s2cid = 4352029| url = http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Steele_KM_1999_Prelude_or_Requiem.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Steele | first1 = Kenneth M.| last2 = Bass | first2 = Karen E.| last3 = Crook | first3 = Melissa D.| doi = 10.1111/1467-9280.00169 | title = The Mystery of the Mozart Effect: Failure to Replicate | journal = [[Psychological Science]] | volume = 10 | issue = 4 | pages = 366–369| year = 1999 | s2cid = 13793518}}</ref> In a pair of papers published together under the title "Prelude or Requiem for the 'Mozart Effect'?" Chabris reported a  [[meta-analysis]] demonstrating that "any cognitive enhancement is small and does not reflect any change in IQ or reasoning ability in general, but instead derives entirely from performance on one specific type of cognitive task and has a simple neuropsychological explanation", called "enjoyment arousal". For example, he cites a study that found that "listening either to Mozart or to a passage from a [[Stephen King]] story enhanced subjects' performance in paper folding and cutting (one of the tests frequently employed by Rauscher and Shaw) but only for those who enjoyed what they heard". Steele et al. found that "listening to Mozart produced a 3-point increase relative to silence in one experiment and a 4-point decrease in the other experiment".<ref name="steele">{{cite web |last=Steele |first=M |title=Papers by Steele casting doubt on the Mozart effect |publisher=appstate.edu |url=http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~kms/research/Steele.htm |access-date=2007-03-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070227133724/http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~kms/research/Steele.htm |archive-date=2007-02-27 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In another study, the effect was replicated with the original Mozart music, but eliminated when the tempo was slowed down and major chords were replaced by minor chords.<ref name="Husain" />

Another meta-analysis by Pietschnig, Voracek, and Formann (2010) combined results of 39 studies to answer the question as to whether or not the Mozart Effect exists. They concluded that there is little evidence to support the Mozart effect, as shown by small effect sizes. However, the most striking finding in this meta-analysis is the significantly larger effects published in studies affiliated with Rauscher or Rideout, with effect sizes more than three times higher for published studies affiliated with these founding members of the Mozart Effect. These systematic moderating effects due to lab affiliation call into question the existence of a Mozart Effect. In addition, this study also found strong evidence supporting a confounding [[publication bias]] when effect sizes of samples who listened to Mozart are compared to samples not exposed to a stimulus.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pietschnig|first1=Jakob|last2=Voracek|first2=Martin|last3=Formann|first3=Anton K.|title=Mozart effect–Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis|journal=Intelligence|volume=38|issue=3|year=2010|pages=314–323|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2010.03.001}}</ref>

Despite implementing Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky's (1995)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Rauscher|first1=Frances H.|last2=Shaw|first2=Gordon L.|last3=Ky|first3=Katherine N.|title=Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: towards a neurophysiological basis|journal=Neuroscience Letters|volume=185|issue=1|year=1995|pages=44–47|pmid=7731551|doi=10.1016/0304-3940(94)11221-4|s2cid=20299379}}</ref> suggestions of three key components that must be present to replicate the Mozart Effect, McCutcheon (2000) still failed to reproduce the Mozart Effect in a study with 36 adults. These conditions were: to ensure a task that taps into spatial components of mental imagery; a research design that does not include a pretest to avoid ceiling effects; a musical composition that is complex rather than repetitive and simple. Regardless of listening to classical music, jazz or silence, the study did not yield a significant effect on spatial reasoning performance.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCutcheon|first1=Lynn E.|title=Another failure to generalize the Mozart effect|journal=Psychological Reports|volume=87|issue=5|year=2000|pages=325–30|pmid=11026433|doi=10.2466/pr0.2000.87.1.325|s2cid=26613447}}</ref>

The Mozart Effect is likely just an artifact of arousal and heightened mood.<ref name="thompson" /><ref name="JonesWest2006">{{cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=Martin H.|last2=West|first2=Stephen D.|last3=Estell|first3=David B.|title=The Mozart effect: Arousal, preference, and spatial performance.|journal=Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts|volume=S|issue=1|year=2006|pages=26–32|doi=10.1037/1931-3896.S.1.26}}</ref><ref name="Steele2000">{{cite journal|last1=Steele|first1=Kenneth M.|title=Arousal and mood factors in the "Mozart effect"|pmid=11011888|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|volume=91|issue=1|year=2000|pages=188–190|url=http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms//documents/Arousal.pdf|doi=10.2466/pms.2000.91.1.188|s2cid=21977655|access-date=2015-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106155327/http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/documents/Arousal.pdf|archive-date=2017-01-06|url-status=dead}}</ref> Arousal is the confounding variable that mediates the relationship between spatial ability and music that defines the Mozart Effect.<ref name="JonesWest2006" /> The "neural resonance" theory of Rauscher and colleagues which contends that Mozart's music primes the neural pathways of spatial reasoning has been widely criticized.<ref name="JonesWest2006" /><ref name="Steele2000" />

Government bodies also became involved in analysing the wealth (some 300+ articles as of 2005) of reports. A German report concluded, for instance, that "... passively listening to Mozart — or indeed any other music you enjoy — does not make you smarter. But more studies should be done to find out whether music lessons could raise your child's IQ in the long term".<ref>{{cite news |first=Alison |last=Abbott |title=Mozart doesn't make you clever |url=http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070413/full/news070409-13.html |publisher=Nature.com |access-date= 2009-05-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Ralph |last=Schumacher |title=Macht Mozart schlau? |url=http://www.bmbf.de/pub/macht_mozart_schlau.pdf |publisher=Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung |page=183 |access-date=2009-05-22 |language=de |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172239/http://www.bmbf.de/pub/macht_mozart_schlau.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-26 }}</ref>

Popular presentations of the "Mozart effect", including Alex Ross's comment that "listening to Mozart actually makes you smarter" and Zell Miller's "don't you feel smarter" query to the Georgia legislature, almost always tie it to "intelligence." Rauscher, one of the original researchers, has disclaimed this idea. In a 1999 reply to an article challenging the effect,<ref name="steele" /> published along with the article, she wrote (emphasis added):
{{blockquote|Our results on the effects of listening to ''Mozart's 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.}}

On efforts like Miller's budget proposal, and the press attention surrounding the effect, Rauscher has said, "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."<ref name="rauschernyt">Goode, Erica (1999), [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/03/science/mozart-for-baby-some-say-maybe-not.html "Mozart For Baby? Some Say, Maybe Not"]. ''The New York Times'', 1999-08-03 p. f1: Rauscher, "the money could be better spent on music education programs."</ref>

Many scholars in the psychological community now view the claim that playing classical music to children can boost their intelligence to be a "myth."<ref>{{cite book|title=50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology |isbn=978-1405131124|author1=Lilienfeld, Scott O. |author-link1=Scott Lilienfeld |author2=Lynn, Steven Jay |author3=Ruscio, John |author4=Beyerstein, Barry L. |year=2009|publisher=Wiley}}</ref>   [[Emory University]] psychologist [[Scott Lilienfeld]] ranks Mozart Effect as number six in his book ''[[50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology]]''.<ref>{{cite web|author1=University of Vienna|author-link1=University of Vienna|title=Mozart's music does not make you smarter, study finds|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510075415.htm|website=www.sciencedaily.com|access-date=2 January 2017|date=May 10, 2010}}</ref>

===Health benefits===
Music has been evaluated to see if it has other properties. The April 2001 edition of ''[[Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine]]'' assessed the possible health benefits of the music of Mozart.<ref name="epilepsyorg">{{cite web |url=http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/mozart.html |title=The Mozart Effect |publisher=epilepsy.org |access-date= 2007-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130109052504/http://epilepsy.org.uk/info/treatment/mozart-effect|archive-date=9 January 2013}}</ref> John Jenkins played Sonata K.448 to patients with epilepsy and found a decrease in epileptiform activity. According to the British Epilepsy Organization, research has suggested that apart from Mozart's [[Sonata for Two Pianos in D major (Mozart)|K.448]] and [[Piano Concerto No. 23 (Mozart)|Piano Concerto No. 23 (K. 488)]], only one other piece of music has been found to have a similar effect; a song by the Greek composer [[Yanni]], entitled "Acroyali/Standing in Motion" (version from ''[[Yanni Live at the Acropolis]] performed at the [[Acropolis]]'').<ref name="epilepsyorg" /> It was determined to have the "Mozart effect", by the ''[[Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine]]'' because it was similar to Mozart's K.448 in [[tempo]], structure, melodic and harmonic consonance and predictability.<ref name="epilepsyorg" /><ref name="Yanni in Words67">{{cite book |last=Yanni |author2=Rensin, David |title=Yanni in Words |publisher=[[Miramax Books]] |year=2002 |isbn=1-4013-5194-8 |page=[https://archive.org/details/yanniinwords00yann/page/67 67] |url=https://archive.org/details/yanniinwords00yann/page/67 }}</ref>

In 2023, Sandra Oberleiter and Jakob Pietschnig showed in ''[[Scientific Reports]]'' that the existing evidence on the Mozart Effect in epilepsy is not scientifically robust. In an extensive meta-analysis, it was argued that positive findings regarding symptom relief are based on inadequate research designs, selective reporting, and too small sample sizes. Additionally, results cannot be replicated because study data is not available and therefore does not comply with modern research standards.<ref>{{Cite book|author1=Oberleiter, Sandra|author2=Pietschnig, Jakob|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30206-w</|title=Unfounded authority, underpowered studies, and non-transparent reporting perpetuate the Mozart effect myth: a multiverse meta-analysis}}</ref>