MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407137368 · doi:10.2196/69120

Effects of Sound Interventions on the Mental Stress Response in Adults: Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4407137368 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marina Saskovets, Irina Saponkova, Zilu Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintPsychological interventionPsychologyStress (linguistics)MedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This scoping review examines the effects of various sound interventions, including music, natural sounds, and speech, on the stress response in adults. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to identify key therapeutic factors, including sound type, individual listener characteristics, and environmental influences. It also synthesizes evidence on physiological responses to sound interventions and highlights current research gaps. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search using databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO, focusing on studies from 1990 to 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and laboratory experiments that measured stress through physiological markers (eg, heart rate variability and cortisol) and self-reports. A total of 34 studies were included, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify recurring themes in the findings. RESULTS: The findings suggest that music, especially classical and self-selected pieces, effectively reduces physiological stress markers, including cortisol levels, heart rate variability, and blood pressure. Nonmusical sounds, such as nature sounds and calming voices, also demonstrate potential for stress relief, although research in this area remains limited. While most sound interventions showed positive effects, some studies reported adverse effects, indicating that sound can both alleviate and induce stress. The outcomes were substantially affected by contextual factors such as personal preferences, delivery methods, cultural context, and emphasizing the importance of personalized interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Sound interventions offer promising, noninvasive methods for stress reduction. This review suggests that future research should address gaps in the study of nonmusical sound interventions and further investigate the neural mechanisms underlying stress responses to sound. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/54030.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.438 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207