From Lehmann at musikwiss.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 1 20:46:30 1999 From: Lehmann at musikwiss.uni-halle.de (Andreas C. Lehmann) Date: Fri Jun 1 15:36:50 2007 Subject: [MWS]: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wen_der_Mozart_Effekt_und_die_j=FCngste_?= Debatte interessiert... Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990901204630.008144a0@mlucom6.urz.uni-halle.de> Liebe Liste -- Ich hatte Frances Rauscher angeschrieben, weil ich über andere Leute auf eine interessante Stellungnahme ihrerseits gehört/gelesen hatte. Hier also zwei Stellungnahmen, die Prof. Rauscher mir freundlicherweise für die MuWiSys zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Ein Teil des Anschreibens habe ich auch zur Orientierung mit einkopiert. >Dear Andreas, >Thank you so much for your kind words of support. ... [...] >Anyway, here is the response I wrote to Artsedge. They had sent out an >email to their list cueing people into a National Public Radio (NPR) >broadcast supposedly "debunking" my and Gordon Shaw's 1993 work. I took >issue with the word "debunk," and responded thus. I have attached my >Nature response to Chabris and Steele's papers as well. (Incidentally, >I was given only 6 days to combine two responses I'd written earlier >that had already gone through peer review at Nature (to Chabris and >Steele's papers separately), and given under 600 words to do so. I have >several other methodological concerns regarding their work, and other >scientists have contacted me with their own ideas about it all. There's >actually been a wonderful outpouring of support by researchers here.) > [....] --Fran Stellungnahme 1: ARTSEDGE > > >I am grateful for Artsedge's support of my work, and look forward to a >> continued relationship. However, after reading your email I feel that it >> is extremely important to point out a few things. >> >> First, the NPR broadcast did not "debunk" my research. The word "debunk" >> is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "to expose the >> falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of." Our actual research made no >> exaggerated claims, despite the fact that media reports of it did. I >> know your use of the term came directly from NPR's promo, but I believe >> we should all be careful not to use such strong language when it does >> not apply. (This may seem to be an unimportant distinction, but to a >> scientist it is an enormous one.) >> >> Second, it is important to bear in mind that the report was on our 1993 >> research exploring the effects of *listening to* music on college >> students' spatial-temporal abilities. It did not address our studies of >> music instruction, or our work on music and the brain, and should be >> considered limited in scope. >> >> Third, there were some serious flaws in both the Harvard graduate >> student's research ( Chris Chabris) mentioned in the piece, as well as >> in the Appalachian State work by Ken Steele. My comments, addressing as >> many of these flaws as was possible in 600 words, are published in last >> week's Nature along with their letters, for those who are interested. >> Because some of your recipients may not have convenient access to the >> journal, I have appended a draft of the response I sent to Nature to >> this email. >> >> Many recipients of your email will not bother to check out the NPR web >> site and most will not read the Nature research. People will therefore >> assume that my work has not been replicated, based on your email. In >> fact, it has been replicated at least 12 times, 7 of which replications >> were carried out by independent laboratories. >> >> As I say in my Nature response, "Because some people cannot get bread to >> rise does not negate the existence of a "yeast effect." >> Stellungnahme 2: Chabris & Steele >> >> Reply: Prelude or Requiem for the Mozart Effect? > > My colleagues and my research on the effects of listening to Mozart >Sonata K. 448 on spatial-temporal task performance (1,2,3) has >generated much public interest and, subsequently, several >misconceptions, many of which are reflected in attempts to replicate the >research. Chabris’ and Steele’s letters echo the most common of these: >Listening to Mozart enhances intelligence. Our reports made no such >claims. The effect is limited to spatial-temporal tasks involving >mental imagery and temporal ordering. > Chabris’ oversight led him to include in his analysis "abstract >reasoning" tasks other than spatial-temporal tasks, a subset of the >former. He overlooked four studies, 4-7 all demonstrating a Mozart >effect, and excluded comparisons of scores following Mozart versus other >composers (2,4,8-9), further undermining his results. Finally, Chabris’ >claim that the effect is limited to one task is incorrect. It has been >demonstrated with three other spatial-temporal tasks (6-7,10). Chabris >attributes "…whatever…remains of the Mozart effect…" to IQ test >variation, a fair hypothesis had the Mozart effect anything to do with >overall IQ. Test-retest reliability of spatial-temporal scores must be >significantly smaller than that of general IQ score, a composite of many >unrelated sub-tests. > Chabris dismisses the neural model (11) that motivated the >original report (1), proposing the following: Mozart produces >"enjoyment arousal," a right-hemisphere function, as is spatial-temporal >task performance. Other abstract reasoning tasks (i.e., Ravens >Matrices) are >left-hemisphere functions. Chabris claims music therefore improves >spatial-temporal tasks, not matrix tasks, due to a shared >right-hemisphere locus. However, listening to music also includes >processing, for example, rhythmic information, a left hemisphere >function (12). Chabris’ reasoning would then predict that music >produces enhancement of left-hemisphere tasks, such as Ravens Matrices, >due to a shared left-hemisphere locus. These tasks, however, are not >improved by music. > Irregardless, several studies suggest that the "enjoyment arousal" >explanation is unlikely. First, rats exposed to the Mozart sonata in >utero plus 60 days post-partem during their waking cycles learned a >spatial maze faster and with fewer errors over days than controls (13). >It seems unlikely that these animals’ improved learning was due to >pleasure they derived from the treatment. Second, students who listened >to Mozart, Mendelssohn, relaxation instructions, or silence demonstrated >a Mozart effect despite ratings of the Mendelssohn work as maximally >arousing (4). Third, students who listened to the Mozart sonata scored >higher on a spatial-temporal task than after they listened to other >stimuli, regardless of their preference (5). Finally, researchers >investigating the Mozart effect on epileptiform activity found that the >sonata produced a reversal of epileptic state in comatose patients (14). > No effects were found from exposure to control music. According to the >researchers, this finding strongly suggests that the effect is not >caused by emotional state or arousal. > Steele’s report summarizes three non peer-reviewed studies >claiming the absence of a Mozart effect, each utilizing a different >design. Not one design replicated the original reports (1-3), >introducing several methodological concerns. For example, >spatial-temporal task performance varies widely between individuals, >making randomization an inefficient method of ensuring uniform >before-treatment task proficiency (2). What measures were taken by the >two studies employing between-subjects designs to tackle this? Also, >was testing performed blind, as in other replications (1-5)? Steele’s >account, based on unpublished studies and virtually no literature >review, is as scientifically useful as media >reports claiming that Mozart makes one smarter. > Chabris’ analysis is incomplete and includes studies not relevant to >the effect he was supposedly exploring; Steele’s report is sketchy and >ill-informed. Although the Mozart effect cannot be found under all >laboratory conditions, several studies have successfully replicated it >(1-10,13,15-16). It does, in fact, exist. Correspondingly, the fact >that some people cannot get bread to rise does not negate the existence >of a "Yeast effect." > > >Frances H. Rauscher >Department of Psychology >University of Wisconsin >Oshkosh, WI 54901 USA > >References >1. Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G.L., & Ky, K.N. Nature 365, 611 (1993). >2. Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G.L., & Ky, K.N. Neuroscience Letters 185, >44-47 (1995). >3. Rauscher, F.H, & Shaw, G.L. Perceptual and Motor Skills 86, 835-841 (1998). >4. Rauscher, F.H., & Ribar, R.J. Submitted to Perceptual and Motor >Skills (1999). >5. Rauscher, F.H., Hughes, J.L., Miller, R.J., & Hayes, L.J. Manuscript >in preparation (1999). >6. Rauscher, F.H., & Hayes, L.J. Manuscript in preparation (1999). >7. Siegel, S. Submitted to Perceptual and Motor Skills (1999). >8. Rideout, B.E., Dougherty, S., & Wernert, L. Perceptual and Motor >Skills 86, 512-514 (1998). >9. Nantais, K.M., & Schellenberg, E.G. Psychological Science 10, 370-373 (1999). >10. Wilson, T.L., & Brown, T.L. The Journal of Psychology 131, 365-370 (1997). >11. Leng. X., & Shaw, G.L. Concepts in Neuroscience 2, 229-258 (1991). >12. Peretz, I. Brain 113, 1185-1205 (1990). >13. Rauscher, F.H., Robinson, K.D., & Jens, J.J. Neurological Research >20, 427-432 (1998). >14. Hughes, J.R., Daaboul, Y., Fino, J.J., & Shaw, G.L. Clinical >Electroencephalography 29, 109-119 (1998). >15. Rideout,.B.E., & Laubach, C.M. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82, >427-432 (1996). >16. Rideout, B.E., & Taylor, J. Perceptual and Motor Skills 85, 112-114 (1997). Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Andreas C. Lehmann ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ANDREAS C. LEHMANN OFFICE: Institut fuer Musikwissenschaft; Martin-Luther-Universitaet Halle; Reichardtstr. 4; D - 06114 Halle (Saale); Germany OFFICE PHONE: +49 345-55 24559/24551 OFFICE FAX: +49 345-5527206 HOME: Am Kirchtor 28; D - 06108 Halle (Saale); Germany HOME PHONE +49 345-3889129 h EMAIL: Lehmann@musikwiss.uni-halle.de WWW: http://mlucom6.urz.uni-halle.de/~msasj/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From bs-muenchen at stelkens.de Thu Sep 2 16:08:29 1999 From: bs-muenchen at stelkens.de (buero stelkens) Date: Fri Jun 1 15:36:50 2007 Subject: [MWS]: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Einladung_zur_KlangForschung_=B499_in_?= Muenchen Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19990902160829.00823b90@post.strato.de > Liebe Klang- und Kunstbegeisterte, hier kommt eine ganz herzliche Einladung zur: KlangForschung ´99 dem Symposium zur elektronischen Musik und Medienkunst in Muenchen 8.10.99 bis 11.10.99 in der Universitaet-Muenchen (LMU-Muenchen) Das Programm der KlangForschung ´99 mit allen Referenten, Konzerten, Events,Zeiten und Orten findet sich unter: http://www.stelkens.de/klforsch99/ Hier koennen auch wieder Ihre Plaetze reserviert werden. Die KlangForschung ´99 wird live im evosonic Radio auf Astra 1b / DSF / 7,38 & 7,56 mhz und auf http://www.evosonic.de uebertragen. Wir freuen uns auf Ihr Interesse, mit freundlichen Gruessen, Joerg Stelkens -------- If you want to be removed from this list, please give me a little note... -------- ---------------------------------------------- - - - Dipl.- Ing. Joerg Stelkens - - - - buero muenchen - - in der [alten conditorei] - - Adlzreiterstr. 14 - - 80337 Muenchen (Zentrum) - - - - mail: bs-muenchen@stelkens.de - - info: info@stelkens.de - - privat: joerg@stelkens.de - - - - mobil: 0172/9613748 - - - - www: http://www.stelkens.de - - - ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- - - - Aktuelle Projekte: - - - - KlangForschung 99: Workshop zur el. Musik - - http://www.stelkens.de/klforsch99/ - - klangforschung@stelkens.de - - - - Crusher-X: auditive fog-synthesis - - Tel: 089/54370517 (www is comming soon!) - - - - bsDXStuff: realtime DSP components using - - Direct-X - - Tel: 089/54370517 (www is comming soon!) - - - ----------------------------------------------