1. Effect of Music on Memory

2. Evolution of Ideas Initial Brainstorming: Navigation Extended Blind-walking Task Sex differences on tasks Multitasking Music Music as a distracter on a task(s), comparing males and females each member of the group researched an area of study that was considered most interesting several areas of study were suggested

3. Evolution of Ideas Preliminary Design: Music vs. No music Task i.e. crossword, word search Males vs. Females who would perform better? discovery of Postma et al. (1998) - Sex Differences in Object Location Memory more research! too simple? contribution to literature?

4. Rauscher, Shaw and Ky (1993) o Mozart vs. Relaxation Instructions vs. Silence o exposure to a Mozart song showed a temporary improvement in spatiotemporal reasoning skills Problem: NOT replicated Steele, Bass & Crook 1999; Steele, Brown & Stoecker, 1999; Steele, Dalla Bella, Peretz, Dunlop, Dawe, Humphrey, Shannon, Kirby & Olmstead 1999 Evolution of Ideas

5. Background Research Outline Memory Spatial Spatial vs. Verbal Verbal

6. Baddeley, 2000

7. Working Memory Baddeley & Hitch, 1974 o Multi-component model o Visuospatial sketchpad o Phonological loop o Controlled by central executive o Episodic buffer added (Baddeley 2000) Verbal and spatial tasks should not compete for resources Concurrent speech/verbal tasks should o (Repovs & Baddeley, 2006)

8. Working Memory Farley et. al (2007) Looked at ability to remember a sequence of letters Participants heard prose in Experiment 1 In experiments 2,3 &4 the participants heard digits In repeated patterns or one digit was repeated Result Both digits & prose interfered with letter recall But, most letters are seen in combinations that compose words

9. Working Memory Polich et al. (1982) Examined interference between orthographical and phonological speech o Participants were shown words that o sounded alike (cake bake) or just looked alike (beard heard) o Sometimes the orthographic & phonological features matched, sometimes they did not o Yes/no response – matching sound, similar features Results o If orthographic & phonological features did not match  Increased reaction time  Increased error  Longer P300 latencies – decision making o But, only looked at speech – no object/speech comparison

10. Working Memory Postma Izendoorn & De Haan (1998) o Separate verbal & spatial components o Object-to-position assignment task o With or without verbal suppression (“blah”) o Saw ten objects on screen o Object-to-position-assignment - positions pre-marked o Positions-only condition – all objects the same o Combined condition – ten different objects, no pre-marking Results o Positions-only condition & Combined condition  Males did better than females o Object-to-position-assignment articulatory suppression effect Shortcoming – did not use words commonly heard in speech

11. Spatial vs.Verbal Memory Ito and Iwanaga (2002) Pupose: the disturbance effect of music on the processing of verbal and spatial memories Method: subjects perform verbal and spatial tasks while listening to different types of music: music with lyrics, instrumental music, natural music or no music. shown word patterns and had to decide if pattern had been shown earlier or if it was novel Result: found it more difficult to complete any tasks during the vocal music condition compared with the instrumental music condition participants answered the spatial task correctly more often than the verbal task Shortcoming: did not consider the effect that the lyrics in the songs being listened to might have on the verbal task being completed

12. Purnell-Webb et al. (2008): music aids verbal recall Familiarity of melody and rhythm act as retrieval cues for verbal recall Peretz et al. (2004): relationship between lyrics and music in memory Recognition of lyrics when primed by a melody occurred Recognition of melody when primed by lyrics occurred priming: a representation in memory is created and this facilitates activation of related items -activation allows one to process a target that is related to the representation more efficiently Verbal Memory

14. Rationale & Expectations Separate spatial and auditory components Activate either visuospatial or phonological loop Assess interference Expect : o No interference between lyrics and spatial recall task  Different resource allocation – visuospatial sketchpad and phonological loop o Interference between lyrics and word recall task  Split of resource – phonological loop required for both tasks

15. Hypotheses Relevant lyrics will facilitate word recall Non- relevant lyrics will interfere with word recall Type of lyrics will have no effect on spatial tasks Music will have a facilitatory effect on spatial recall

16. Experiment Design Participants Nine, female undergraduate students between 17-29 years of age Interested in knowing if listening to music while studying is helpful or detrimental General instructions about the study were given prior to participation (handout) Apparatus and Music Microsoft Powerpoint presentation software to display a series of slides and instructions Wannabe by the Spice Girls (1996) Computer volume was set at 50% of its maximum volume Standard earbud headphones, quiet room, no visual distractors

17. Experimental Design Experimental Tasks Verbal and word-to-position tasks, completed in 3 different conditions - RW = Relevant words listening to music with lyrics that corresponded to the words used in the task - NRW = Non-relevant words listening to music with words that did not correspond to words in the task o Control = listening to natural music (rain) nine trial blocks, each block containing a verbal and a word-to- position assignment task, for a total of eighteen trials per participant

18. Experiment Design Data Processing Scores  Verbal: percentage of words correctly recalled  Word-to-Position: percentage of words correctly located

19. Data Sheet

20. Results Hypothesis 1: Relevant lyrics will facilitate word recall Non- relevant lyrics will interfere with word recall

21. Results Hypothesis 2: Type of lyrics will have no effect on word- to-position tasks

22. Repeated Measures ANOVA There was no significant difference between RW, NRW and control: F(2,14) = 0.85, p>0.05 There was no significant difference between Word-to position and Verbal: F(1,7) = 0.083, p>0.05 There was no significant interaction: F(2,14) = 0.50, p>0.05

23. Discussion recall facilitation when listening to the song in the word- to-position task Expectation: Working Memory: Baddeley’s model: visuospatial sketchpad, phonological loop  Performance will ↓ if 2 tasks are using the same subcomponent Postma et al. (1998): object-to-position task may have used the visuospatial sketchpad  Word-to-position task: use of the phonological loop, rather than the visuospatial sketchpad?

24. Discussion Song Choice – “Wannabe” recall facilitation when words were relevant to the verbal task (RW) Expectation : Purnell-Webb et al. (2008): familiar melody and rhythm facilitated verbal recall Peretz et al. (2004): bidirectional relationship between lyrics and melody Oron-Gilad et al. (2008): listening to preferred music increased arousal and did not hinder performance

25. Future Research & Improvements Song choice o Personal preference (Oron-Gilad et al., 2008) Improved spatial task o foam shapes o Remove semantic processing Increase number of participants o power Compare males to females o Our results may be due to the use of only female participants o Males have been shown to be better at spatial tasks

26. What We Have Learned The extensive process of researching Critiquing current literature - shortcomings, what has not been examined? Trial and error - the process of creating a design, running an experiment Working as a team - active involvement Time management