The effect of listening to loud music in the performance of three higher-level cognitive functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For some people, listening to music can be a pleasant collateral activity during working hours. Occasionally considered to be an important stress reducing strategy in situations when planning, and decision making are required. For that reason, in this work we seek to assess the effect of listening to music at sound pressure levels Leq of 74 to 78 dB-A, in three higher-level cognitive functions: planning, inhibition and visuospatial working memory, in a group of 22 young adults 22 to 39 years old from Mexico City using a two-phase quasi experimental design. During phase 1, all participants were screened for good hearing health through a standard pure-tone audiometry, and then performed four neuropsychological tests while listening to loud music. During phase 2, participants performed the same neuropsychological tests applied during phase 1, but without presenting the musical stimulus in a quiet laboratory environment with a background noise level Leq of 24 to 30 dB-A. In both phases participants were also physiologically tested for possible stress markers. The results demonstrate that listening to loud music might negatively affects daily life cognitive abilities like planning, inhibition, and visuospatial working memory.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".