Effects of Sound Interventions on the Mental Stress Response in Adults: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sound therapy methods have seen a surge in popularity, with a predominant focus on music among all types of sound stimulation. There is substantial evidence documenting the integrative impact of music therapy on psycho-emotional and physiological outcomes, rendering it beneficial for addressing stress-related conditions such as pain syndromes, depression, and anxiety. Despite these advancements, the therapeutic aspects of sound, as well as the mechanisms underlying its efficacy, remain incompletely understood. Existing research on music as a holistic cultural phenomenon often overlooks crucial aspects of sound therapy mechanisms, particularly those related to speech acoustics or the so-called "music of speech." OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide an overview of empirical research on sound interventions to elucidate the mechanism underlying their positive effects. Specifically, we will focus on identifying therapeutic factors and mechanisms of change associated with sound interventions. Our analysis will compare the most prevalent types of sound interventions reported in clinical studies and experiments. Moreover, we will explore the therapeutic effects of sound beyond music, encompassing natural human speech and intermediate forms such as traditional poetry performances. METHODS: This review adheres to the methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting review studies, which is adapted from the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Our search strategy encompasses PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO or EBSCOhost, covering literature from 1990 to the present. Among the different study types, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, laboratory experiments, and field experiments were included. RESULTS: Data collection began in October 2022. We found a total of 2027 items. Our initial search uncovered an asymmetry in the distribution of studies, with a larger number focused on music therapy compared with those exploring prosody in spoken interventions such as guided meditation or hypnosis. We extracted and selected papers using Rayyan software (Rayyan) and identified 41 eligible papers after title and abstract screening. The completion of the scoping review is anticipated by October 2024, with key steps comprising the analysis of findings by May 2024, drafting and revising the study by July 2024, and submitting the paper for publication in October 2024. CONCLUSIONS: In the next step, we will conduct a quality evaluation of the papers and then chart and group the therapeutic factors extracted from them. This process aims to unveil conceptual gaps in existing studies. Gray literature sources, such as Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, nonindexed conferences, and reference list searches of retrieved studies, will be added to our search strategy to increase the number of relevant papers that we cover. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54030.
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 | 0.054 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.011 |
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".