1. Effects of Background Music on Spatial and Linguistic Processing1
Leslie A. Angel, Donald J. Polzella and Greg C. Elvers
University of Dayton
Abstract
College students were trained according to one of two standardized task protocols: spatial (mental rotation) or linguistic (letter classification). Testing consisted of multiple randomized trials with and without background music (classical piano) at two levels of task difficulty. Raw data for both tasks were response time and accuracy. Background music increased the speed of spatial processing at both difficulty levels, while accuracy of processing remained unaffected. In contrast, background music increased the accuracy of linguistic processing, while speed of processing remained unaffected. These findings, integrated with those of a previous experiment from our laboratory, suggest: (1) regardless of an individual’s predilection, background music can affect aspects of human performance, and (2) the specific effects, whether enhancing or disrupting, appear to reflect the similarity between the task demands and certain objective characteristics of the background music.
Method
Procedure. Subjects were trained according to the standard CTS task training protocol (Shingledecker, 1984), which is designed to produce asymptotic performance. Testing proceeded according to a counterbalanced sequence of three 3-minute trial blocks at two levels of difficulty, with and without background music, which was played through headphones.
Results
Linguistic processing. Based on an exploratory data analysis, six outliers were removed from the dataset. An analysis of variance of the transformed mean response times revealed significant main effects for task difficulty, F(1,20) = , p = .000, eta2 = .93, trial sequence, F(2,19) = , p = .000, eta2 = .64, and the interaction of difficulty and trials, F(2,19) = , p = .001, eta2 = .55. No other effects were significant. In general, response latency increased with task difficulty and decreased across trials at the higher level of difficulty. An analysis of variance of the transformed mean proportions of correct responses revealed significant main effects of task difficulty, F(1,20) = , p = .000, eta2 = .66, and music/no music, F(1,20) = , p = .001, eta2 = .43. No other effects were significant. In general, response accuracy decreased with task difficulty and increased when background music was present. The most important effects are summarized in the two figures below.
Discussion
In the present experiment, background music increased the speed of spatial processing and the accuracy of linguistic processing. Because both effects were positive, we are inclined to view background music as generally facilitating. However, an earlier experiment (Polzella & Schoeling, 2004) showed that background music can disrupt task performance when there is a potential for interference, e.g., when the music includes a vocal line and the task requires verbal rehearsal.
That same experiment showed that background music can facilitate motor tracking. The attraction of movement to auditory rhythms (Repp & Penel, 2004) provides a plausible explanation for this finding. It may also help to explain the facilitating effects of background music observed in the present experiment, since both tasks, spatial and linguistic, required a motor response and temporal awareness.
The present findings notwithstanding, there is little reason to question Nantais and Schellenberg’s (1999) conclusion that the Mozart effect is an artifact of preference.
Background
The effects of background music on concurrent or subsequent human performance are inconsistent. Schellenberg (2004) concludes that certain positive findings, such as the so-called Mozart effect (Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993), can be attributed to changes in arousal or mood, which are generated by different testing conditions.
Personal preference—whether for music, no music, or other ambience—appears to be a principal factor in predicting subsequent performance (Nantais & Schellenberg, 1999). However, a previous experiment from our laboratory (Polzella & Schoeling, 2004) suggests that other factors are more important when the task is concurrent.
In that experiment, subjects were trained according to a standardized memory search or unstable motor tracking task protocol. Testing consisted of multiple trials at varying levels of difficulty with and without familiar background music. Background music disrupted working memory, but it enhanced motor tracking, particularly when the task was challenging. These results suggest that, regardless of an individual’s predilection, familiar background music can affect that individual’s performance. The effect, whether enhancing or disrupting, appears to reflect the similarity between the task demands and certain objective characteristics of the music. The present experiment extends this line of research to different tasks and music.
References
Chiles, W. D., Alluisi, E. A., & Adams, O. S. (1968). Work schedules and performance during confinement. Human Factors, 10, 143–196.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
Fuller, R. (2002). W. A. Mozart klavierwerke I, II, III. [CD]. Lake Oswego, OR: Palatine Recordings.
Nantais, K. M., & Schellenberg, E. G. (1999). The Mozart effect: An artifact of preference. Psychological Science, 10, 370–373.
Polzella, D. J., & Schoeling, S. (2004, November). Effects of familiar background music on working memory and motor tracking. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.
Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74, 392–409.
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.
Repp, B. H., & Penel, A. (2004). Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms. Psychological Research, 68, 252–270.
Schellenberg, E. G. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15, 511–514.
Shingledecker, C. A. (1984). A task battery for applied human performance assessment research (AFAMRL-TR- 071). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
Results
Data analysis. The mixed experimental design included one between-subjects factor (male/female) and three within-subjects factors (music/no music, task difficulty, trial block sequence). The dependent measures, computed across each block of trials, were mean response time measured in milliseconds and mean proportion of correct responses. Logarithmic and arcsine transformations were applied to each measure, respectively, in an effort to achieve normality and homogeneity of variance.
Spatial processing. Based on an exploratory data analysis, five outliers were removed from the dataset. An analysis of variance of the transformed mean response times revealed significant main effects of task difficulty, F(1,21) = , p = .000, eta2 = .93, trial sequence, F(2,20) = 5.765, p = .011, eta2 = .37, and music/no music, F(1,21) = , p = .001, eta2 = .44. No other effects were significant. In general, response latency increased with task difficulty, decreased across trials, and decreased when background music was present. An analysis of variance of the transformed mean proportions of correct responses revealed significant main effects of task difficulty, F(1,21) = , p = .000, eta2 = .64, and trial sequence, F(2,20) = 5.159, p = .016, eta2 = .34. No other effects were significant. In general, response accuracy decreased with task difficulty and increased across trial. The most important effects are summarized in the two figures below.
Method
Participants. Fifty-six undergraduate students in psychology (28 males, 28 females) participated in this experiment. Half the participants (an equal number of males and females) performed a spatial processing or linguistic processing task, respectively.
Tasks. Participants were trained and tested on either a spatial processing task (cf. Chiles, Alluisi, & Adams, 1968) or a linguistic processing task (cf. Craik & Tulving, 1975; Posner & Mitchell, 1967). The spatial processing task involves mentally rotating a bar graph with level of difficulty based on the number of bars present. The linguistic processing task involves classifying letter- or word-pairs as same or different with level of difficulty based on physical or conceptual similarity. Both tasks are part of the Criterion Task Set (CTS; Shingledecker, 1984), a computerized test battery developed at the USAF Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory for use in human performance assessment research. Specific features of each task are illustrated in the drawings.
Background music. The music consisted of excerpts from 10 piano sonatas by Mozart (Fuller, 2002), which were matched for tempo (allegro).
1This poster was presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto, ON, November 10, It is based on a thesis submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at the University of Dayton. Correspondence: Don Polzella, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH