Heavy rain sounds (15) Most recent Oldest Shortest duration Longest duration Any Length 2 sec 2 sec - 5 sec 5 sec - 20 sec 20 sec - 1 min 1 min All libraries Rob Bridgett Glitchmachines CA Sound Articulated Sounds Jakob Thiesen Raconteur Sound WW Audio xeno.

Studies in the literature have provided conflicting evidence about the effects of background noise or music on concurrent cognitive tasks. Some studies have shown a detrimental effect, while others have shown a beneficial effect of background auditory stimuli.

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of agitating, happy or touching music, as opposed to environmental sounds or silence, on the ability of non-musician subjects to perform arithmetic operations. Fifty university students (25 women and 25 men, 25 introverts and 25 extroverts) volunteered for the study. The participants were administered 180 easy or difficult arithmetic operations (division, multiplication, subtraction and addition) while listening to heavy rain sounds, silence or classical music. Silence was detrimental when participants were faced with difficult arithmetic operations, as it was associated with significantly worse accuracy and slower RTs than music or rain sound conditions.

This finding suggests that the benefit of background stimulation was not music-specific but possibly due to an enhanced cerebral alertness level induced by the auditory stimulation. Introverts were always faster than extroverts in solving mathematical problems, except when the latter performed calculations accompanied by the sound of heavy rain, a condition that made them as fast as introverts. While the background auditory stimuli had no effect on the arithmetic ability of either group in the easy condition, it strongly affected extroverts in the difficult condition, with RTs being faster during agitating or joyful music as well as rain sounds, compared to the silent condition. For introverts, agitating music was associated with faster response times than the silent condition. This group difference may be explained on the basis of the notion that introverts have a generally higher arousal level compared to extroverts and would therefore benefit less from the background auditory stimuli.

ParticipantsFifty psychology university students (25 women and 25 men), with a mean age of 22.94 yrs. (min = 18, max = 29, SD = 2.49), volunteered for the study. The participants were given academic credits in exchange for their participation. All participants had normal (or corrected-to-normal) vision and normal hearing. All of the participants were right-handed as determined by administration of the Edinburgh laterality questionnaire. Their mean score was 0.72 (scale = -1 left handed, +1 right handed). Fourteen of the participants had a left eye dominance, whereas 26 had a right ocular dominance as determined by administration of 2 practical ocular dominance tests (the tube test and the binocular line alignment test).

The lack of any present or past neurologic or psychic disorder (including epilepsy, acalculia, learning disability disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, and head trauma) was assessed through a self-paced questionnaire. Score hero apk. Participants were also administered the Eysenck Extroversion-Introversion scale ( Eysenck Personality Inventory;) on the basis of which they were divided in two subgroups: those who scored from 1 to 12 were included in the introverts group (25 Ss), while those who scored from 12 to 21 were included in the extroverts group (25 Ss). The psychological profile of the participants was normo-typical, and they only differed in the introversion-extroversion dimension, as can be seen in.

Volunteers were required to refrain from any drug, or heavy alcohol and caffeine consumption within the 24 hours prior to participation. The experiment was conducted with approval from the Ethical Committee of the University of Milano-Bicocca and in compliance with the APA ethical standards for the treatment of human volunteers (1992, American Psychological Association).

Informed written consent was obtained from all subjects. All experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Visual stimuliThe visual stimuli consisted of a set of 180 arithmetic operations (division, multiplication, subtraction and addition) that were presented randomly on a PC monitor, and each operation was followed by a hypothetical result, which was correct (right) in half of the cases and was incorrect (wrong) in the other cases.

The operations followed these criteria:.they involved integer numbers from 0 to 2000;.they could contain up to 8 characters, including the operator;.they were followed by a result of 0 to 10, which was also an integer number;.half of them were followed by a correct result, and the other half were followed by an incorrect result; and.they were all different from each other.The operations were validated as easy or difficult by 12 graduated judges (5 women and 7 men, aged 26 to 54 years). The judges were asked to evaluate, by means of a Likert 3 point scale, how difficult they found the calculus resolution. The judges were instructed to give a 1 to all arithmetic operations whose result immediately appeared right or wrong, a 2 to all operations for which they had some doubt or uncertainty, and a 3 to all operations that appeared unsolvable. While stimuli rated 3 were eliminated, stimuli rated 1 were considered easy, and stimuli rated 2 were considered difficult. On the basis of this procedure, the level of difficulty was accurately balanced across the correct and incorrect categories.

There were 4 categories of stimuli: easy right (N = 45), e.g., 98–98 = 0; easy wrong (N = 45), e.g., 3x3 = 7; difficult right (N = 45), e.g., 910:130 = 7; and difficult wrong (N = 45), e.g., 1862:318 = 9. Operations were typed in yellow on a bluish grey background and were presented in the centre of the fixation point area. Their maximum eccentricity from the fixation point was 2.5 degrees of the visual angle. The operation result was printed in yellow in a larger font (size = 2 cm) exactly on the fixation point. ProcedureThe participants comfortably sat in front of a computer screen placed 114 cm from their eyes in an experimental cubicle, which was acoustically and electrically shielded. The subjects were instructed to gaze at the centre of the screen (where a small yellow circle served as a fixation point during the stimulus presentation) and avoid any eye or body movement during the experimental session.

The subjects wore a pair of headphones ( Sennheiser HD 202) for listening to the background auditory stimuli and were instructed to attentively look at the mathematical operation. After the proposed result was flashed, the participants were instructed to press a button with his/her index finger to signal that the response was correct or with his/her middle finger to signal that it was incorrect. The response hand (left or right) was alternated across trials and announced at the beginning of each trial. The sequence order and presentation as well as the response hand order were randomized across subjects. Mathematical operations were presented for 1500 ms and were followed by an inter-stimulus interval (ISI) randomly ranging from 100 to 150 ms. The results of the operations were presented for 1500 ms and were followed by an inter-trial interval (ITI) of 1000 ms. Every experimental sequence was preceded by the presentation of 3 warning signals, “attention”, “set”, and “go”, and each lasted 1 sec with a 1 sec ISI.

The experimental session was also preceded by two experimental sequences in which participants practised the response press with both hands and were familiarized with the task procedure. The background auditory stimuli for the training sessions consisted of 2 minutes of nature sounds and Jazz music. Environmental noise consisted of the sound of ocean waves downloaded from YouTube, Google Inc.: ), and Jazz music consisting of an instrumental smooth jazz piece ( Ibiza Piano Bar Music, Piano Bar Music Records, 2013 from YouTube, Google Inc.: ).The experimental sessions consisted of 15-minute runs during which participants had to solve 12 arithmetical operations and immediately decide if the proposed result was right or wrong. Every run included 3 easy correct operations, 3 easy incorrect operations, 3 difficult correct operations and 3 difficult incorrect operations, and the operations were randomly mixed. Of the 15 sequences, 3 were associated with a background of agitating music; 3, with a background of joyful music; 3, with a background of rain sounds; and 3, with silent conditions. Conditions were randomly mixed and mixed across the participants. Half of the subjects listened to music characterized by an atonal style (full of dissonances, dodecaphonic and serial music, such as Boulez’s), while half of them listened to classical tonal music (such as Bach’s).Experimental sequences were created via the Eevoke system ( ASA System), which controlled stimulus presentation and response recording.

Data analysisResponse times (RTs) and the percentage of correct responses (hits) were recorded and quantified. RTs that exceeded the mean value ±2 standard deviations were discarded, which resulted in a rejection rate of approximately 5%.

Data normality was assessed through the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro-Wilk = 0.97862 for RTs and 0.94816 for hits). Both RTs and accuracy percentages were subjected to separate multifactorial repeated-measures ANOVAs with 2 between-subjects factor and 3 within-subjects factors, whose factors of variability were as follows:group (extroverts and introverts), tonality condition (tonal or atonal), background (agitating, happy or touching music; rain sounds; or silence), correctness (right or wrong), and difficulty (easy or difficult).

Tukey’s post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons among the means. Partial eta squared values were systematically provided to estimate effect sizes. Homoscedasticity was not assumed and p-values were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser correction. HitsOverall, the two groups did not differ in their percentage of correct responses (Extroverts: 80.01%, SE = 1.36; Introverts = 80.27%, SE = 1.48), meaning that their mathematical abilities were identical.Musical style (tonal vs. Atonal) did not affect performance (p = 0.45). ANOVA of the percentage of correct responses indicated the significance of the background factor F(4,184) = 16.62; ε = 0.821701; p.

Percentages of correct recognition of right and wrong arithmetic results as a function of operation difficulty (left).Response times relative to the correct recognition of right and wrong arithmetic results as a function of operation difficulty (right).The interactions of background x correctness F(1,184) = 5.78; ε = 0.943212; p. Reaction timesThe overall response speed ranged from an average of 770 ms (SE = 21.62) for extroverts to an average of 731 ms (SE = 23.49) for introverts. Overall RTs were much faster in response to easy (651 ms, SE = 47.6) than difficult (851 ms, SE = 61.7) operations F(1, 46) = 2015, ε = 1, p. Mean response times (in ms) recorded as a function of the type of background auditory stimuli and operation difficulty.Notably, the background auditory stimuli had no effect on RTs during the solving of easy arithmetical operations (the “floor effect”).The significant interaction of group x background F(4,184) = 2.5; ε = 0.850342; p. Mean response times (in ms) recorded as a function of group (extroverts vs. Introverts) and background auditory stimuli.The auditory stimulation had a stronger “Mozart” (alerting) effect on extroverts.The significant triple interaction of group x background x task difficulty F(4, 184) = 2.6749, ε = 0.905655; p.

Mean response times (in ms) recorded as a function of group (extroverts vs. Introverts), background auditory stimuli and operation difficulty.Finally, the triple interaction of background x difficulty x correctness F(4,184) = 2.6; ε = 0.932231; p. Relaxing and agitating music: Neuronal entrainment to beatIt can be hypothesized that the lack of a quickening of RT during listening to touching music, as opposed to other stimulus types, might be due to the slower tempo (e.g., Adagio) that characterized both the tonal and atonal sad pieces with respect to the faster agitating and joyful pieces. While Bach’s melody occurs as some sort of “airy,” relaxed and lyrical dialogue between the two concertante solo violins that alternate and overlap by counterpointing each other (see Proverbio et al. for a complete musicological description of the pieces), in Cantus in memoriam de Benjamin Britten, the atmosphere is rarefied and suspended.

Conversely, the 1st movement of Kammermusik (by Paul Hindemith, 1922, the opening passage), which was the atonal joyful piece, was characterized by Hindemith himself with the following wording: Sehrschnell und wild, translated as 'very fast and wild' to refer to the agitated, repetitive and rhythmic nature of the musical writing used. Again, the tonal joyful piece by Beethoven has a fast tempo (Allegro: the last minute of the coda of the 4th movement of Symphony No. 5 in C major, op. The two agitating pieces were “agitating” (distressful, i.e., induced psychological tension and increased anxiety) as described by a group of 20 orchestra directors in Proverbio et al. Specifically, in Donatoni’s Duo pour Bruno, “a state of intense and irrepressible excitement predominates, in which the hinge bar is followed by chord blocks in trill and tremolo by strings, alternated with polyphony of winds. These features can therefore generate a feeling of intense agitation and distress, with furious moments alternated with plaintive states”. The agitating tonal piece, Bach’s St.

John Passion in G minor (BWV 245 the opening passage), is also quite dramatic and rhythmic. Conversely, the touching pieces were slower and meditative, characteristics that are relaxing and might reduce the EEG rhythm. In this regard, it is known that while listening to music, the phenomenon of neuronal entrainment to the beat and metre may occur, for which neuronal oscillations in primary sensory cortices may entrain to the attended rhythmic streams ,.

Significant correlations between EEG frequency and the bandpower of the music in the same frequency band over time have been observed. Therefore, a faster auditory beat is associated with a faster EEG frequency, resulting in increased cerebral arousal; this might explain the different pattern of results that were obtained for RTs that were not quickened during listening to touching music (meditative and slow tempo) with respect to the silent condition, as they were with other music types, including heavy rain. Introversion-extroversion trait and alertness stateThe significant interaction of group per background showed that introverts were always faster than extroverts in solving mathematical problems, except when listening to rain sounds, a condition that made them as fast as introverts. Furthermore, while the background auditory stimuli had no effect whatsoever on the arithmetic ability of either group in the easy condition, it strongly affected extroverts in the difficult condition, with RTs being faster during listening to agitating or joyful music as well as to rain sounds compared to the silent condition. For introverts, agitating music was associated with faster response times than the silent condition. Therefore, overall, the background auditory stimuli increased cerebral arousal more so in extroverts than in introverts. This finding may be explained on the basis of the notion that introverts have a generally higher arousal level compared to extroverts ,; therefore, they would benefit less from the auditory background.

For example, this notion has been demonstrated by electrophysiological studies providing evidence that introverts elicit larger sensory (N1)-evoked responses compared to extroverts in response to auditory tones (e.g., ). In our study, introverts were generally faster than extroverts in making calculations. This piece of data may be considered in two ways: either according to the theory that central processes associated with stimulus analysis are faster and, thus, more efficient in introverts than in extraverts, as supported by some authors , or to the view that introverts are faster than extroverts in tasks assessing response speed and motor control , possibly because of a more elaborate analysis of sensory information for introverts. Nevertheless, the literature has shown that introverts are more rapid than extroverts in processing information at the premotor level, which demonstrates that, if necessary, introverts are capable of analysing stimuli more quickly than extroverted individuals (e.g., ).Last, the dissociation between accuracy and response speed (i.e., the lack of a group effect for the former set of data) shares some similarity with what was reported by Hallam and colleagues , who found that listening to music increased the response speed (but not accuracy) during the solving of arithmetic problems.

Here, we actually did find background effects on accuracy, though less consistent and, more importantly, not articulated as a function of group. This finding suggests that the background auditory stimuli had either the power to increase cerebral arousal, resulting in faster responses, or to improve mental concentration, resulting in greater accuracy, and not affecting mathematical ability per se. In an interesting pioneer study, it was shown that background music increased the percentage of target detection in a visual vigilance task, when conditions were more difficult , which suggested aspecific modulation of the alertness state caused by listening to music.Overall, the effects of background music on cognition depend on different variables: it can facilitate, impair, or have no effect on performance. Variables that seem to play a role range from individual differences (e.g., Introversion-Extroversion trait, musical expertise or music preferences) the type of concurrent task performed, and the type of background music used in the study, in interaction with the listener preferences; e.g. Classical music ,.