MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417476312 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32240-2

Effects of five-minutes music intervention on college students’ memory

2025· article· en· W4417476312 on OpenAlexaff
Laila Yakoub‐Agha, Jameel Soqia, Lujain Nahas, Mhd Basheer Alameer, Lama Mohamad, Marah Yakoub-Agha, Caroline Almohsen, Samer Mohsen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallIntervention (counseling)Memory spanShort-term memoryVisual memoryMnemonicWorking memoryCognitionMemorization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to investigate the impact of five-minutes of music on types of memory in college students. Sixty-nine students successfully completed the study, they were randomly assigned to either a control group or an intervention group. This study was two days long, and the intervention (listening to five minutes of Oriental Jazz music) was applied in the second day. We assessed short-term visual memory (immediate recall and five-minute delayed recall) with Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, short-term verbal-auditory memory (immediate recall and ten-minute delayed recall) with Rey Audio-Verbal Learning test, Working memory with forward and backward Digit Span test, and false memory with Deese-Roediger-McDermott test. Results showed that the intervention did not cause any significant effect on the recall of verbal information, on working memory performance, or on the incidence of false memories. However, music had a positive impact on visual memory. This study suggests the possible positive impact of music if used in educational settings aligned with visual teaching methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueScientific Reports→Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→