Music Listening Alters Kinetics and Kinematics of Running: A Cross-Over Study Comparing Gender, Running Speeds, and Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Martinez, G, Ventura, L, Rossanigo, R, Morrone, M, Meloni, M, Boi, A, Melis, A, De Luca, LM, Bussu, F, Uccula, A, Behm, DG, Cereatti, A, Deriu, F, and Manca, A. Music listening alters kinetics and kinematics of running: A cross-over study comparing gender, running speeds, and surfaces. J Strength Cond Res 39(6): 649-659, 2025-Music listening while exercising leads to physiologic, psychological, and biomechanical effects. The distracting role of music on runner's attention is also documented, with potentially detrimental effects. This study tested the hypotheses that (a) music would lead to biomechanical changes; (b) effects would differ between sexes, running surfaces, and speeds; and (c) biomechanical changes would be larger in subjects displaying higher distractibility at the attention tests. Fifty young casual runners (25W/25M) volunteered to perform 400-meter runs at 8 and 10 km·h -1 on treadmill and athletics track while exposed or not to in-ear, 85-decibel tempo music. Running biomechanics was assessed by wearable inertial units. Main effects of music and interactions with sex, surface, and speed were tested by repeated-measures analysis of variance. Second, runners' distractibility was tested by Sustained Attention to Response Task and Stroop attention tests, administered while exposed or not to the same tempo music. Significance was set for p < 0.05. Music led to significant changes in most biomechanical parameters only when running on the treadmill. Although sex and speed were not significant factors, music effects proved slightly but significantly larger in women than in men, and at 8 km·h -1 running speed compared with 10 km·h -1 running speed. Regarding distractibility tests, men made significantly more errors in the Stroop test when exposed to music, but this finding was uncorrelated with music effects on biomechanics. Music listening altered running biomechanics only on the treadmill. Such alterations may reduce running efficiency, warranting consideration from sports professionals, athletes, and joggers exercising on the treadmill because they may lead to enhanced risk for musculoskeletal injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".