MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416724764 · doi:10.7717/peerj.20444

Patterns of pre-sleep music use and sleep quality: exploratory survey findings on state anxiety

2025· article· en· W4416724764 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Danso, Mareike Ehlert, Friederike Koehler, Rory Kirk, Nandhini Natarajan, Shannon Wright, Renee Timmers, Suvi Saarikallio

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsAnxietyMoodModerationAssociation (psychology)Sleep (system call)Active listeningSleep qualityPittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music listening is a widely used self-help approach that may influence psychological and physiological processes associated with sleep. This cross-sectional study explored patterns of pre-sleep music use in relation to psychological distress (state anxiety, mood disturbance, stress) and subjective sleep quality. Adults ( N = 269, 52.6% female; M age = 27.7, SD = 9.0) completed validated self-report measures of sleep quality (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)) and psychological distress. Pre-sleep music use was modestly associated with poorer sleep quality ( r = 0.23, p < 0.01). A borderline interaction between state anxiety and music use ( β = −0.170, p = 0.050) suggested, but did not confirm, a possible buffering pattern in which the anxiety-sleep association appeared weaker among more frequent music users. No moderation effects were observed for mood or stress. These preliminary findings suggest that pre-sleep music use may reflect a coping-oriented effort among individuals experiencing anxiety. However, given the cross-sectional design, self-report measures, and borderline statistical support, the results should be viewed as descriptive and hypothesis-generating.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207