Music Listening, Emotion, and Cognition in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the arousal and mood hypothesis as a theoretical framework, we examined whether community-dwelling older adults (N = 132) exhibited cognitive benefits after listening to music. Participants listened to shorter (≈2.5 min) or longer (≈8 min) excerpts from recordings of happy- or sad-sounding music or from a spoken-word recording. Before and after listening, they completed tasks measuring visuospatial working memory (WM), cognitive flexibility and speed, verbal fluency, and mathematical ability, as well as measures of arousal and mood. In general, older adults improved from pre- to post-test on the cognitive tasks. For the test of WM, the increase was greater for participants who heard happy-sounding music compared to those in the other two groups. The happy-sounding group also exhibited larger increases in arousal and mood, although improvements in mood were evident only for the long-duration condition. At the individual level, however, improvements in WM were unrelated to changes in arousal or mood. In short, the results were partially consistent with the arousal and mood hypothesis. For older adults, listening to happy-sounding music may optimize arousal levels and mood, and improve performance on some cognitive tasks (i.e., WM), even though there is no direct link between changes in arousal/mood and changes in WM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".