[MWS]: Wen der Mozart Effekt und die jüngste Debatte interessiert...
Andreas C. Lehmann
Lehmann at musikwiss.uni-halle.de
Mit Sep 1 20:46:30 CEST 1999
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 at musikwiss.uni-halle.de
WWW: http://mlucom6.urz.uni-halle.de/~msasj/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----