Effect of Background Music on Attentional Control in Older and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy aging can be accompanied by cognitive decline that includes diminished attentional control, an executive function allowing us to focus attention while inhibiting distractors. However, previous studies have demonstrated that background music can enhance some executive functions, in both young and older adults. According to the arousal-mood theory, the beneficial influence of background music on cognitive performance would be related to its ability to increase the arousal level of the listeners and to improve their mood. Consequently, a stimulating and pleasant music might optimally enhance attentional control. Therefore, this study aimed at determining if the influence of background music, and more specifically its arousal level, might improve attentional control in older adults and whether this effect is similar across older and young adults. To do so, older and young adults performed a flanker task under the exposition of three auditory conditions: stimulating music, relaxing music, and silence. Participants had to indicate as fast and as accurately as possible the direction of a central arrow, which was surrounded by four congruent or incongruent arrows (e.g., > > > > > or < < > < <). As expected, reaction times were slower for the incongruent compared to congruent trials. Interestingly, this difference was significantly greater under the relaxing music condition compared to other auditory conditions. This effect was the same in the two age groups. In conclusion, relaxing music seems to impair attentional control compared to stimulating music and silence, regardless of age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".