Therapeutic effect of tempo in Mozart’s “Sonata for two pianos” (K. 448) in patients with epilepsy: An electroencephalographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mozart's "Sonata for two pianos" (Köchel listing 448) has proven effective as music therapy for patients with epilepsy, but little is understood about the mechanism of which feature in it impacted therapeutic effect. This study explored whether tempo in that piece is important for its therapeutic effect. METHODS: We measured the effects of tempo in Mozart's sonata on clinical and electroencephalographic parameters of 147 patients with epilepsy who listened to the music at slow, original, or accelerated speed. As a control, patients listened to Haydn's Symphony no. 94 at original speed. RESULTS: Listening to Mozart's piece at original speed significantly reduced the number of interictal epileptic discharges. It decreased beta power in the frontal, parietal, and occipital regions, suggesting increased auditory attention and reduced visual attention. It also decreased functional connectivity among frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital brain regions, also suggesting increased auditory attention and reduced visual attention. No such effects were observed after patients listened to the slow or fast version of Mozart's piece, or to Haydn's symphony at normal speed. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that Mozart's "Sonata for two pianos" may exert therapeutic effects by regulating attention when played at its original tempo, but not slower or faster. These findings may help guide the design and optimization of music therapy against epilepsy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".