Background Music and Memory in Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Role of Interindividual Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent research has shown that background music may improve memory consolidation and retrieval. Nevertheless, in the clinical conditions preceding dementia such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), there is no current evidence speaking to what effect background music during memory tasks has on impaired cognition. OBJECTIVE: Across three experiments, we investigated if background music is able to improve memory performance, the most impacted cognitive domain in amnestic MCI. METHODS: We tested the effect of background music by using a face recognition memory task in patients with amnestic MCI. In Experiment 1, we tested the effect of background music on memory when it was played solely during an encoding phase. In Experiment 2, we explored effects of background music when played during both encoding and recognition phases. In Experiment 3, we explored the role of musically induced arousal on memory. RESULTS: The main finding from these three experiments was that background music played during a memory task did not improve or worsen participant performance. However, when exposed to high-arousal music, memory performance was predicted by individual mood regulation. For low-arousal music conditions, there was a negative relationship between rating scores for music pleasantness and performance on the memory task. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the benefits of background music on memory in individuals with MCI are modulated by interindividual preferences towards music.
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".