ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

AGING NEUROSCIENCE
published: 15 October 2014
doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00284

The cognitive effects of listening to background music on

older adults: processing speed improves with upbeat
music, while memory seems to benefit from both upbeat
and downbeat music
Sara Bottiroli 1 *, Alessia Rosi 2 , Riccardo Russo 2,3 , Tomaso Vecchi 1,2 and Elena Cavallini 2
1
Brain Connectivity Center, National Neurological Institute C. Mondino, Pavia, Italy
2
Brain and Behavioral Sciences Department, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
3
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Essex, UK

Edited by: Background music refers to any music played while the listener is performing another
Nicola Mammarella, University of
activity. Most studies on this effect have been conducted on young adults, while little
Chieti, Italy
attention has been paid to the presence of this effect in older adults. Hence, this study
Reviewed by:
Harry J. Witchel, University of aimed to address this imbalance by assessing the impact of different types of background
Sussex, UK music on cognitive tasks tapping declarative memory and processing speed in older adults.
Richard Camicioli, McGill University, Overall, background music tended to improve performance over no music and white noise,
Canada
but not always in the same manner. The theoretical and practical implications of the
*Correspondence:
empirical findings are discussed.
Sara Bottiroli, Brain and Behavioral
Sciences Department, University of
Keywords: background music, arousal, mood, processing speed, episodic memory, semantic memory, aging
Pavia, Piazza Botta, 6 Pavia,
PV 27100, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION of the music itself, respectively (Gabrielsson and Lindström,

Background music refers to any music that is played while the 2010). In particular, as reported in the context of the Mozart
listener’s primary attention is focused on another task or activity effect, fast tempo and major mode music tend to induce a
(Radocy and Boyle, 1988). This background music effect differs positive/happy mood and higher arousal levels, whereas slow
from the so-called Mozart effect (Rauscher et al., 1993), which tempo and minor mode music induce a more negative/sad
refers to the changes in cognitive abilities following listening mood and lower arousal levels (e.g., Husain et al., 2002; Hunter
to music. Despite the above difference, there is consensus on and Schellenberg, 2010). Moreover, the effects of these differ-
these effects to operate on common mechanisms (Schellenberg ent levels of mood and arousal seem to vary depending on
and Weiss, 2013). The present study primarily focused on the the cognitive abilities considered. In particular, several studies
background music effect. investigating the Mozart effect reported benefits primarily using
Some studies on the effect of background music on tasks tapping processing speed and visuo-spatial abilities but
performance in cognitive tasks have shown improvements in only when the music had a fast tempo and a major mode (e.g.,
episodic memory (Ferreri et al., 2013), IQ scores (Cockerton Thompson et al., 2001; Husain et al., 2002; Schellenberg et al.,
et al., 1997), verbal and visual processing speed (Angel et al., 2007).
2010), arithmetic skill (Hallam and Price, 1998), reading (Oliver, Conversely, disturbing and interfering effects of background
1997), and second languages learning (Kang and Williamson, music have been reported for multimedia learning (Moreno and
2013). However, there is also evidence of reduced performance Mayer, 2000), surgeons learning of new procedures (Miskovic
when background music is present (see Kämpfe et al., 2010 for a et al., 2008), mathematics (Bloor, 2009), and reading (Mad-
review). sen, 1987). These negative findings could be explained by the
According to the “arousal and mood hypothesis” (Thompson “cognitive-capacity hypothesis” (Kahneman, 1973), positing that
et al., 2001), the positive effect of music on human behavior a limited pool of resources is available for cognitive processing
is considered to be a consequence of the impact of music on at any given moment (Baddeley, 2003), thus background music
mood and arousal. In particular, listening to music affects arousal can disrupt cognitive tasks when there is a potential for inter-
(degree of physiological activation), mood (long lasting emo- ference (e.g., Polzella and Schoeling, 2004) due to an overtax of
tions), and listener’s enjoyment, which in turn influence cog- resources (Norman and Bobrow, 1975). In particular, detrimental
nitive performance (Hallam et al., 2002). The impact of music effects related to background music seem to be modulated by
on arousal and on mood of listeners seems to be determined task complexity: the more complex and demanding the task, the
by the tempo (fast vs. slow) and the mode (major vs. minus) stronger is the detrimental effect of music (Furnham and Bradley,

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 1

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

1997; Furnham and Allass, 1999). In summary, with respect to to an increase of arousal levels (e.g., Söderlund et al., 2007,
the background music effect there are conflicting results as well as 2010).
conflicting theoretical approaches that may, in principle, provide In order to evaluate the effects of background music on dif-
a unified account of the effect (or lack of it) on the basis of ferent cognitive abilities, we used tests tapping processing speed
task complexity. When task complexity surpasses some critical and declarative memory. Our decision was driven by three main
threshold, then performance is impaired. Conversely, below a reasons. Firstly, processing speed is one of those abilities sensitive
certain level of task complexity the arousal and mood hypothesis to the tempo and the mode of the music in those studies involv-
may account for some beneficial effects of background music on ing students (e.g., Schellenberg et al., 2007; Angel et al., 2010),
task performance. While this theoretical stance may be appeal- thus it could represent a clear probe of the possible different
ing, it is not clear why background music, below certain levels effects of positive and negative background music in older adults.
of task complexity, it is not simply neutral, but it is indeed Second, the effect of background music on memory is rather
beneficial. controversial in the literature on young adults, with evidences of
An interesting way to test the potential merit of the above both beneficial effects (e.g., Ferreri et al., 2013) and detrimental
hypotheses consists of assessing the background music effect effects (e.g., Moreno and Mayer, 2000; Miskovic et al., 2008).
on older adults. Given that normal aging is particularly asso- Hence, we intended to assess the impact of different types of
ciated with deficits in inhibiting irrelevant information and background music on tests tapping what are nominally called
with deficits in tasks performed under divided attention (e.g., episodic memory (free recall) and semantic memory (phonemic
Parks, 2007), background music should negatively affect per- fluency). Third, both processing speed and memory are cog-
formance in cognitive tasks in older adults. Hence, if back- nitive abilities mostly affected by aging (see Salthouse, 2004),
ground music does provide a beneficial effect to performance thus it is of interest to assess whether background music may
in cognitive tasks in older adults, then the validity of the have a negative or positive effects on these tasks among older
“cognitive capacity hypothesis” would be weakened. There- adults.
fore, the present study intended to assess the impact of back- Because of the above theoretical considerations, some specula-
ground music on the performance of older adults in cognitive tions could be put forward. On one hand, if older adults are sensi-
tasks. tive to the “arousal and mood” effect of music (Thompson et al.,
To the best of our knowledge, only three studies had been 2001), their performance should be enhanced by background
conducted on normal aging (Thompson et al., 2005; Mam- music in comparison to the two control conditions (no-music
marella et al., 2007; Ferreri et al., 2014). These compared the and white noise) with different effects between the positive and
effects of listening to music excerpt with high tempo and major the negative condition. With respect to processing speed, per-
mode vs. no-music on word fluency (Thompson et al., 2005; formance should improve while listening to the fast tempo and
Mammarella et al., 2007), on working memory (Mammarella major background music compared to a slow tempo and minor
et al., 2007), and on recognition memory (Ferreri et al., 2014). mode background music (e.g., Schellenberg et al., 2007). With
Interestingly, they all reported a specific positive effect of the respect to memory, prior research suggested that fast tempo and
background music that was able to enhance performance on major mode background music should improve performance in
the cognitive abilities examined. However, these studies in fail- the elderly (Mammarella et al., 2007; Ferreri et al., 2014). To the
ing to include a negative emotional-valence background music best of our knowledge the effect of a slow tempo and minor mode
(low tempo in minor mode), did not provide a thorough background music on memory among older adults has not been
assessment of the impact of background music on cognitive investigated.
tasks. Hence, in the present study we included two different On the other hand, according to the “cognitive-capacity
types of background music. We selected Mozart’s Eine Kleine hypothesis” (Kahneman, 1973), we should expect that in the
Nachtmusik (positive background music with fast tempo and tasks used performance among older adults when exposed to no-
major mode) and Mahler’s 5th Symphony Adagietto (nega- music will be significantly greater than in the other experimental
tive background music with slow tempo and minor mode), conditions.
on the basis that these two pieces of music have been shown
to induce happy and sad moods, and high and low arousal MATERIAL AND METHOD
levels, respectively (Niedenthal and Setterlund, 1994; Storbeck PARTICIPANTS
and Clore, 2005; Riener et al., 2011). Furthermore, we also Sixty-five non musicians older adults took part in the study.
used two control conditions: a no-music and a white noise Their mean age was 69.03 (SD = 5.79; age range 60–84 years;
control conditions to assess whether music improves (impairs) 51 females and 14 males) and mean of education was 12.29 years
performance over baseline conditions. In particular, the white (SD = 3.88). Exclusion criteria included history of psychiatric
noise refers to a special type of environmental stimulation or neurological disorders, substance abuse and a score of 23
consisting in the exposure to a continuous auditory signal. Pre- or higher on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression
vious evidences on white noise have produced mixed findings, Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977; Italian version, Fava, 1983). None of
reporting some instances of disturbing effects due to a compe- the participants was excluded on the basis of the above criteria.
tition for cognitive resources (e.g., Hygge et al., 2003; Boman A Vocabulary test (PMA; Thurstone and Thurstone, 1963) was
et al., 2005) and others demonstrating that it was able to pro- also included in the study to assess crystallized intelligence. They
mote learning in those subjects with attentional deficits thanks had a mean score of 45.69 on Vocabulary test (SD = 3.67) out

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 2

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

of a maximum of 50, and a mean score of 15.56 on the CES-D the same task in the four different conditions, we developed
(SD = 6.83). All participants completed and accepted an informed four parallel versions of the SDMT, by changing the associations
consent form prior to the beginning of the experiment. between digits and symbols. Participants were given 90 s to fill as
many empty boxes as possible. Scores for this task were obtained
INSTRUMENTS by subtracting the errors from the number of correctly filled
All participants undertook the Vocabulary subtest and the CES- boxes.
D as control variable measures and three paper-and-pencil cog-
nitive tasks to assess, respectively, declarative memory (episodic Mood questionnaire
memory and semantic memory) and processing speed. To assess how participants rated positive and negative emotions
induced by Mozart’s, Mahler’s and the white noise backgrounds,
Vocabulary participants completed for each ones a brief mood questionnaire.
In the Vocabulary subtest participants were asked to identify the The questionnaire included three items assessing: (1) how much
correct synonym of 50 target words within 8 min. Total scores participants evaluated the music as happy; (2) how much they
could range from 0 to 50. evaluated the music as sad; and (3) how much the amount of
emotion experienced to listen each music, using a 10-point rating-
Depression scale anchored at 1 (very little) and 10 (very much).
The CES-D consisted of 20 multiple-choices questions, asking
participants to rate the frequency with which they have experi- PROCEDURE
enced depressive symptoms during the past week. Responses for Participants performed the three cognitive tests in all of the four
each questions range from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most different background conditions: (1) no-music; (2) white noise;
or all of the time). Possible scores could range from 0 to 60. (3) Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmmusik aimed to induce a positive
emotion/mood and high arousal levels; and (4) Mahler’s Adagietto
Declarative memory Symphony 5 aimed to induce a negative emotion/mood and lower
Episodic memory. Participants were presented with a list of 15 arousal levels. Participants were tested in groups of about 10 in
concrete words in order to assess the episodic memory. Lists of two 2-h sessions a week apart. The type of backgrounds used
word were presented visually on the screen. Participants were (no-music, white noise, Mozart, Mahler) were counterbalanced
instructed to commit to memory the list in a study period of 2 min across participants, so that half of participants were randomly
and, immediately after presentation, were given 2 min to write allocated to the condition where first listened to classical music
down, in any order, as many words as could they remembered. (either Mozart or Mahler) and then to either white noise or no-
We developed four parallel versions of the words-lists in order to music condition, and for the other half of participants the order
assess the same task in the four different conditions. The words was reversed. In addition, within each background conditions,
were taken from Paivio et al. (1968) words norms and the four the order of the cognitive tests was counterbalanced across par-
parallel versions did not significantly differ in term of imagery, ticipants and subjects were randomly allocated to different tasks
concreteness and frequency of use. The episodic memory score order.
used was obtained by subtracting the intrusion words from the In the first session all participants completed, in order,
number of correctly recalled words. (a) the informed consent form; (b) demographic questionnaire;
Semantic memory. To assess semantic memory, a phonemic (c) Vocabulary test; (d) CES-D. Subsequently, both in the first
fluency task was used. Participants were asked to write down and in the second sessions, they performed, for each background
on an answer sheet, as many words as possible beginning with conditions, the parallel versions of the three cognitive tests. In
three different letters of the alphabet. They were instructed that this way, participants performed the same tasks in the four
proper names, place and words with the same suffix were not different background conditions. For example, half of partici-
credited. We developed four parallel versions of the phonemic pants in the first session performed the cognitive tests listening
fluency task, by changing the starting letters, in order to assess first to Mozart then the no-music condition (or first listening
the same task in the four different conditions. Participants were to Mahler and to white noise secondly), and in the second
given 90 s for each letter, and semantic memory score used session performed the cognitive tests listening first to Mahler
was obtained by subtracting the words erroneously produced and then to white noise (or first Mozart followed by the no-
(e.g., proper nouns and repetition) from the number of correct music condition). Instead, in the first session, the other half of
words. participants performed the cognitive tests listening first to white
noise and secondly to Mozart (or first listening to white noise and
Processing speed to Mahler secondly) and, in the second session, performed the
To assess processing speed in the visual modality, the Symbol Digit cognitive tests first with no-music in the background and then
Modalities Test (SDMT; Smith, 1982; Italian version, Nocentini listening to Mahler (or first the no-music condition followed by
et al., 2006) was used. At the top of an A4 sheet of paper, nine Mozart).
abstract geometric shapes were associated with the digits 1–9. Background music was played during the entire task, i.e.,
Participants had been instructed to write the digit, as quickly before and during tasks’ execution. For this reason, the two
as possible, corresponding to the appropriate symbol into rows classical music and the white noise audio tracks started 1 min
of empty boxes with symbols above them. In order to assess before each task, continued during the task, and ended as soon

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 3

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

Table 1 | Means value and standard deviations for cognitive task as a function of background conditions.

Background condition

Mozart Mahler White noise No-music

Cognitive tasks
Episodic memory 9.82 (2.41)ab∗ 9.92 (2.38)cd 9.11 (2.32)bd 8.71 (2.45)ac
Semantic memory 41.61 (11.55)ab 39.80 (9.78)c 36.39 (11.42)bc 38.34 (9.22)a
Processing speed 38.89 (10.31)abc+ 35.51 (9.45)b 34.65 (11.17)a 36.76 (11.63)c+

Note: Scores in parenthesis refer to Standard Deviation. For each row, same supra-scripts indicate significant differences at an alpha level of 0.008. * p = 0.014;
+
p = 0.068.

as each task ended. In order to make the experimental conditions the Mozart condition, t (64) = 2.07. Finally, there was not signifi-
comparable, in the silence condition too, participants were asked cant difference between the two control conditions, t (64) = 1.58.
to be silent for 1 min before starting and during the execution Overall, listening to classical music increased semantic memory
of each task. Before the start of each background condition the performance compared to white noise and no-music. The overall
experimenter verbally provided the instructions and the entire pattern of the impact of the independent variable on semantic
procedure to the participants. Finally, at the end of the second ses- memory is comparable to the one obtained in the free recall
sion, participants completed the mood questionnaire for Mozart, task.
Mahler and white noise backgrounds. To further assess whether the effects of background music on
episodic and semantic memory were comparable, we carried out
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS a repeated-measure factorial ANOVA 4 (background condition:
We conducted a series one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) Mozart, Mahler, white noise, and no-music) as within-subject
with background conditions (4 levels: Mozart, Mahler, white variable by 2 (task: episodic memory vs. semantic memory)
noise, and no-music) as a within-subjects factor. A significant as between-subject variable. Given that the two tasks utilized
level of 0.05 was adopted. Paired t-test were used to follow- different scoring options, the dependent variable was the z-score
up significant F ratios. Since there were at most six pairwise calculated for each subjects for each background music conditions
comparisons, the significance level adopted for these follow-up for the episodic and semantic memory tasks (so each participant
tests was 0.008, unless otherwise stated. Mean values and standard had a mean of zero). Means and standard deviations for the two
deviations for the cognitive tasks are reported in Table 1. declarative memory tasks performance are provided in Table 2.
The analysis showed a significant main effect of background con-
RESULTS dition, F (3,192) = 12.62, MSE = 0.65, η2 = 0.16. It can be noticed
COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE
from Table 2 that this reflects higher memory performance in
the music conditions compared to the no-music conditions. The
Declarative memory
significant interaction, F (3,192) = 2.96, MSE = 0.52, η2 = 0.04, is
Results on episodic memory showed a significant main effect of
not particularly interesting since it is simply a consequence of
background conditions, F (3,192) = 7.68, MSE = 2.85, η2 = 0.11.
larger scores for Mahler (0.28) than Mozart (0.23) in episodic
Pairwise comparisons showed a significant advantage for the
memory, while the reverse occurred in the semantic memory
Mozart condition over no-music, t (64) = 3.64, and a marginally
task (0.08 vs. 0.28, respectively). Similarly higher scores were
significant increase over the white noise, t (64) = 2.53, p = 0.014.
associated with the white noise conditions (−0.15) than the no-
A significant advantage was also found for the Mahler condi-
music condition (−0.36) in the episodic memory task, while the
tion over no-music, t (64) = 4.01, and the white noise condition,
reverse occurred in the semantic memory task (−0.29 vs. −0.08,
t (64) = 3.24. The white noise did not differ from no-music,
respectively).
t (64) = 1.14, as well as the Mozart condition from the Mahler
condition, t (64) = 0.39. Overall, episodic memory performance
increased when classical music was played in the background Table 2 | Means value and standard deviations for the z-score of the
compared to white noise and no music conditions. No significant two declarative memory tasks (episodic and semantic memory) as a
difference emerged between the two classical music conditions function of background conditions.
nor between the two non-music conditions.
Background condition
From the analysis of semantic memory, emerged a signif-
icant main effect of background condition, F (3,192) = 9.70, Mozart Mahler White noise No-music
MSE = 32.95, η2 = 0.13. Follow-up analyses revealed a sig-
nificant advantage of the Mozart condition over no-music, Declarative
t (64) = 3.02, and white noise, t (64) = 5.21. Performance in the memory tasks
Episodic memory 0.23 (1.27) 0.28 (1.26) −0.15 (1.22) −0.36 (1.30)
Mahler condition was significantly higher than in the white noise
Semantic memory 0.28 (1.24) 0.08 (1.05) −0.29 (1.23) −0.08 (0.99)
condition, t (64) = 3.36. The Mahler condition neither differ sig-
nificantly from the no-music condition, t (64) = 1.93, nor from Note: Scores in parenthesis refer to Standard Deviation.

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 4

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

Processing speed “positive” and “negative” background music conditions induced

Regarding the SDMT, the main effect of background conditions a significant performance advantage over the silence and white
was significant, F (3,192) = 5.70, MSE = 37.06, η2 = 0.08. Follow- noise conditions, which did not significantly differ in their
up analyses showed a significant advantage of the Mozart con- effect.
dition over the white noise, t (64) = 4.34, the Mahler condition, The results obtained in the processing speed task could, in
t (64) = 3.75, and an advantage over the no-music condition that principle, be accommodated by the “arousal and mood hypoth-
did not reach significance, t (64) = 1.86. The Mahler condition esis” (Thompson et al., 2001) since performance increased sys-
neither differ significantly from the white noise, t (64) = 0.90, nor tematically in the condition that induced increased positive mood
from the no-music condition, t (64) = 1.20. Finally, there was not and arousal. However, the above result in conjunction with
significant difference between two control conditions, t (64) = 1.51. those obtained in the memory tasks do not appear to support
Overall, it appears that the Mozart condition was associated with the view that increased positive mood and arousal necessarily
the highest performance and that this condition seemed to differ lead to improved performance. Indeed, free recall and phonemic
from the others which were comparable. fluency also benefitted from a background music inducing a
more negative mood. Hence, we cannot consider valid those
MOOD QUESTIONNAIRE approaches retaining that background music leads to improved
Finally, to ensure that the two classical music induced positive and performance only if it increases positive mood and arousal
negative emotions, we analyzed scores obtained by the brief mood levels.
questionnaire for Mozart, Mahler and white noise backgrounds. A post hoc interpretation may consist in retaining that back-
To this end, we conducted a series one-way ANOVAs with back- ground music improves performance when the mood and arousal
ground conditions (3 levels: Mozart, Mahler, and white noise) induced by the music are optimal to support the processes
as a within-subjects factor. Paired t-test were used to follow-up involved in the cognitive task being performed. For example,
significant F ratios. For technical reasons a smaller than the full processing speed tasks, due to their nature, may benefit more
sample provided the mood ratings. from a more alert mood and state. These tasks comprise a
Results on how music was evaluated as happy showed a sig- motor tracking valence that could have benefitted from a syn-
nificant main effect of background conditions, F (2,52) = 236.72, chronization between movement and auditory rhythms (McElrea
MSE = 1.65, η2 = 0.90. Pairwise comparisons showed that and Standing, 1992; Repp and Penel, 2004). The fast and major
Mozart’s excerpt was considered happier than Mahler’s Adagietto music could have in turn produced the best condition to support
(MMozart = 8.63; MMahler = 2.33), t (26) = 18.24, and than the white older adults’ performance, as reported by other research (e.g.,
noise condition (Mwhite noise = 1.78), t (26) = 18.21. Mahler and the Konz and McDougal, 1968; McElrea and Standing, 1992; Repp,
white noise condition did not differ significantly, t (26) = 1.70. 2006).
From the analysis of how music was evaluated as sad, Conversely, memory tasks may be positively affected by any
a significant main effect of background condition emerged, type of background music inducing emotive states. The fact that
F (2,52) = 19.78, MSE = 5.95, η2 = 0.43. Follow-up analyses revealed music is able to evoke emotions is well known (e.g., Panksepp,
that Mahler was rated as more sad than Mozart (MMozart = 1.41; 1995). For instance, Sacks (2006) refers to the evocative power
MMahler = 5.41), t (26) = 7.61, but comparable to white noise of music in evoking transcendent emotions. Given that emotions
condition (Mwhite noise = 4.44), t (26) = 1.27, Finally, the white enhance memory processes and music evokes strong emotions
noise condition was rated more sad than Mozart (MMozart = 1.41), (Jäncke, 2008), our findings highlight the possibility that any
t (26) = 4.42. type of background music can facilitate memory performance.
Regarding the assessment of emotion, the main effect of An explanation is that music activates the limbic system, which is
background condition was also significant, F (2,52) = 79.88, involved in processing the emotions and in controlling memory
MSE = 3.69, η2 = 0.75. Follow-up analyses showed that partic- (e.g., Blood et al., 1999). Evidence supporting this come from
ipants reported that Mozart induced greater emotionality than those studies using therapeutically music to enhance memory in
Mahler (MMozart = 8.70; MMahler = 6.89), t (26) = 3.69, and the Alzheimer’s disease patients by provoking emotional responses
white noise conditions (Mwhite noise = 2.30), t (26) = 12.50. Finally, (e.g., El Haj et al., 2012).
Mahler was significantly different from the white noise condition, A further consideration may be made. If emotional experience
t (26) = 8.19. comprises two dimensions, valence and intensity (e.g., Duffy,
1941), our data seem to suggest that the effects of music on
DISCUSSION memory are due primarily to the intensity of the emotions
The present study examined the impact of different types of induced by music, rather than their specific valence. This purely
background music on tasks tapping declarative memory and post hoc speculation obviously requires empirical testing before
processing speed in a sample of healthy older adults. From being considered as a valid explanation of the background music
the obtained results it appeared that performance in the pro- effect.
cessing speed task, was enhanced when Mozart’s music was Furthermore, it is relevant to notice that a context depen-
played in the background compared to the other three condi- dent learning effect (e.g., Smith, 1985) should not be considered
tions, Mahler included. Conversely, background music affected as a valid explanation of the results obtained in the memory
differently memory performance. Unlike the processing speed tasks for two reasons. Firstly, in the white noise condition, as
task, in the case of episodic and semantic memory tasks both well in the music conditions, some comparable background

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 5

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

sound was presented during the study and test phase of the Cockerton, T., Moore, S., and Norman, D. (1997). Cognitive test performance and
free recall task. Nevertheless, performance was significantly lower background music. Percept. Mot. Skills 85, 1435–1438. doi: 10.2466/pms.1997.
85.3f.1435
than in the classical background music conditions. Secondly,
Duffy, E. (1941). An explanation of “emotional” phenomena without the use of the
due to the nature of the semantic memory task, there were no concept “emotion.” J. Gen. Psychol. 25, 283–293. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1941.
distinctive study and retrieval phases. Despite this feature of 10544400
the task, classical music in the background led to the highest El Haj, M., Postal, V., and Allain, P. (2012). Music enhances autobiographical
performance. memory in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Educ. Gerontol. 38, 30–41. doi: 10.
1080/03601277.2010.515897
Given the cognitive changes associated to normal aging (e.g.,
Fava, G. A. (1983). Assessing depressive symptoms across cultures: Italian vali-
Parks, 2007), the lack of a disruptive effect of background music dation of the CES-D self-rating scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 39, 249–251. doi: 10.
on task performance in our older adults sample seems at vari- 1002/1097-4679(198303)39:2<249::aid-jclp2270390218>3.0.co;2-y
ance with the “cognitive-capacity hypothesis” (Kahneman, 1973). Ferreri, L., Aucouturier, J. J., Muthalib, M., Bigand, E., and Bugaiska, A. (2013).
According to this view, background music should have negatively Music improves verbal memory encoding while decreasing prefrontal cortex
activity: an fNIRS study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:779. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.
affected cognitive performance in older adults. This clearly was 00779
not the case in the present study. Ferreri, L., Bigand, E., Perrey, S., Muthalib, M., Bard, P., and Bugaiska, A. (2014).
It is important to note that our background music con- Less effort, better results: how does music act on prefrontal cortex in older
ditions did not involve information that could have directly adults during verbal encoding? An fNIRS study. Front. Neurosci. 8:301. doi: 10.
competed with processing target information (e.g., the music 3389/fnhum.2014.00301
Furnham, A., and Allass, K. (1999). The influence of musical distraction of
was instrumental and it was not aversively loud), hence the varying complexity on the cognitive performance of extraverts and introverts.
lack of interference we observed. For instance, if cognitive tasks Eur. J. Pers. 13, 27–38. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199901/02)13:1<27::aid-
involve the same auditory channel (e.g., Moreno and Mayer, per318>3.0.co;2-r
2000) of the background music, the likelihood of interference Furnham, A., and Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: the differential
distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of intro-
should increase, in contrast to stimuli processed in separate
verts and extraverts. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 11, 445–455. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-
channels. 0720(199710)11:5<445::aid-acp472>3.3.co;2-i
In summary, the different patterns of results found for pro- Gabrielsson, A., and Lindström, E. (2010). “The role of structure in the musical
cessing speed and memory seem to suggest that the influence expression of emotions,” in Handbook of Music and Emotion: Theory, Research,
of music is not homogeneous. The impact could depend on the Applications, eds P. Juslin and J. Sloboda (New York, NY, US: Oxford University
Press), 367–400.
kind of music background but also on features of the task and/or
Hallam, S., and Price, J. (1998). Research section: can the use of background music
abilities involved. Future studies should better clarify this issue improve the behaviour and academic performance of children with emotional
evaluating the impact of background music on cognitive abilities and behavioural difficulties? Br. J. Spec. Educ. 25, 88–91. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.
using different channels (e.g., visual vs. verbal) and possibly t01-1-00063
using tasks marked by increasing levels of complexity. Clearly Hallam, S., Price, J., and Katsarou, G. (2002). The effect of background music
on primary school pupils’ task performance. Educ. Stud. 28, 111–122. doi: 10.
the background music effect is in need of a valid theoretical 1080/03055690220124551
explanation. Hunter, P. G., and Schellenberg, E. G. (2010). “Music and emotion,” in Music
This study had two main strengths. First, it evaluated the Perception, eds M. R. Jones, R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper (New York: Springer),
impact of background music on the aging population. Second, it 129–164.
used a more thorough methodology than the one used in previous Husain, G., Thompson, W. F., and Shellenberg, E. G. (2002). Effects of musical
tempo and mode on arousal, mood and spatial abilities. Music Percept. 20, 151–
studies in this field (Thompson et al., 2005; Mammarella et al., 171. doi: 10.1525/mp.2002.20.2.151
2007; Ferreri et al., 2014). Hygge, S., Boman, E., and Enmarker, I. (2003). The effects of road traffic noise and
Finally, considering a more pragmatic approach, the results meaningful irrelevant speech on different memory systems. Scand. J. Psychol. 44,
of this study provide a positive message. Listening to music 13–21. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00316
Jäncke, L. (2008). Music, memory and emotion. J. Biol. 7:21. doi: 10.1186/jbiol82
could indeed represent a relatively inexpensive and non-invasive
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
method to enhance those cognitive abilities that are crucial to the Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., and Renkewitz, F. (2010). The impact of background
daily living in elderly adults. music on adult listeners: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Music 39, 424–448. doi: 10.
1177/0305735610376261
Kang, H. J., and Williamson, J. W. (2013). Background can aid second language
REFERENCES learning. Psychol. Music 42, 728–747. doi: 10.1177/0305735613485152
Angel, L. A., Polzella, D. J., and Elvers, G. C. (2010). Background music and Konz, S., and McDougal, D. (1968). The effect of background music on the control
cognitive performance. Percept. Mot. Skills 11, 1059–1064. doi: 10.2466/pms. activity of an automobile driver. Hum. Factors 10, 233–244.
110.3c.1059-1064 Madsen, C. K. (1987). “Background music: competition for focus of attention,” in
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat. Applications of Research in Music Behavior, eds C. K. Madsen and C. A. Prickett
Rev. Neurosci. 4, 829–839. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201 (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press), 315–325.
Blood, A. J., Zatorre, R. J., Bermudez, P., and Evans, A. C. (1999). Emotional Mammarella, N., Fairfield, B., and Cornoldi, C. (2007). Does music enhance
responses to pleasant and unpleasant music correlate with activity in paralimbic cognitive performance in healthy older adults? The Vivaldi effect. Aging Clin.
brain regions. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 382–387. doi: 10.1038/7299 Exp. Res. 19, 394–399. doi: 10.1007/bf03324720
Bloor, A. (2009). The rhythm’s gonna get ya’—background music in primary McElrea, M., and Standing, L. (1992). Fast music causes fast drinking. Percept. Mot.
classrooms and its effect on behaviour and attainment. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. Skills 75:362. doi: 10.2466/pms.1992.75.2.362
14, 261–274. doi: 10.1080/13632750903303070 Miskovic, D., Rosenthal, R., Zingg, U., Oertli, D., Metzger, U., and Jancke, L. (2008).
Boman, E., Enmarker, I., and Hygge, S. (2005). Strength of noise effects on memory Randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of music on the virtual
as a function of noise source and age. Noise Health 7, 11–26. doi: 10.4103/1463- reality laparoscopic learning performance of novice surgeons. Surg. Endosc. 22,
1741.31636 2416–2420. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0040-8

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 6

Bottiroli et al. Background music in aging

Moreno, R., and Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: Schellenberg, E. G., Nakata, T., Hunter, P. G., and Tamoto, S. (2007). Exposure to
the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instruc- music and cognitive performance: tests of children and adults. Psychol. Music 35,
tional messages. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 117–125. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.92. 5–19. doi: 10.1177/0305735607068885
1.117 Schellenberg, E. G., and Weiss, M. W. (2013). “Music and cognitive abilities,” in The
Niedenthal, P. M., and Setterlund, M. B. (1994). Emotion congruence in perception. Psychology of Music 3rd Edn, ed D. Deutsch (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 499–550.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 20, 401–411. doi: 10.1177/0146167294204007 Smith, A. (1982). Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Nocentini, U., Giordano, A., Di Vincenzo, S., Panella, M., and Pasqualetti, P. (2006). Psychological Services.
The symbol digit modalities test-oral version: Italian normative data. Funct. Smith, S. M. (1985). Background music and context-dependent memory. Am. J.
Neurol. 21, 93–96. Psychol. 98, 591–603. doi: 10.2307/1422512
Norman, D. A., and Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited Söderlund, G. B. W., Sikström, S., Loftesnes, J. M., and Sonuga-Barke, E. (2010).
processes. Cogn. Psychol. 7, 44–64. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3 The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive
Oliver, M. (1997). The effect of background music on mood and reading com- school children. Behav. Brain Funct. 6:55. doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-6-55
prehension performance of at-risk college freshmen. Dissertation Abstr. 57, Söderlund, G. B. W., Sikström, S., and Smart, A. (2007). Listen to the noise: noise
5039. is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 48,
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., and Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery 840–847. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01749.x
and meaningfulness value for 925 nouns. J. Exp. Psychol. 76, 1–25. doi: 10. Storbeck, J., and Clore, G. L. (2005). With sadness come accuracy; with happiness,
1037/h0025327 false memory mood and the false memory effect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 785–791.
Panksepp, J. (1995). The emotional sources of “chills” induced by music. Music doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01615.x
Percept. 13, 171–207. doi: 10.2307/40285693 Thompson, R. G., Moulin, C. J. A., Hayre, S., and Jones, R. W. (2005). Music
Parks, C. M. (2007). The role of noncriterial recollection in estimating recollection enhances category fluency in healthy older adults and Alzheimer’s disease
and familiarity. J. Mem. Lang. 57, 81–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.003 patients. Exp. Aging Res. 31, 91–99. doi: 10.1080/03610730590882819
Polzella, D. J., and Schoeling, S. (2004). “Effects of familiar background music on Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, E. G., and Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood and
working memory and motor tracking,” in Poster session presented at the meeting the Mozart effect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 248–251. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00345
of the Psychonomic Society (Minneapolis, MN). Thurstone, T. G., and Thurstone, L. L. (1963). Primary Mental Ability. Chicago, IL:
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report depression sale for Science Research Associates.
research in the general population. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1, 385–401. doi: 10.
1177/014662167700100306 Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted
Radocy, R. E., and Boyle, J. D. (1988). Psychological Foundations of Musical in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed
Behaviour. Sprinfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. as a potential conflict of interest.
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., and Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task
performance. Nature 365:611. doi: 10.1038/365611a0 Received: 24 July 2014; paper pending published: 31 August 2014; accepted: 26
Repp, B. H. (2006). Does auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping? September 2014; published online: 15 October 2014.
Acta Psychol. (Amst) 121, 81–107. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.006 Citation: Bottiroli S, Rosi A, Russo R, Vecchi T and Cavallini E (2014) The cognitive
Repp, B. H., and Penel, A. (2004). Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to effects of listening to background music on older adults: processing speed improves with
auditory than to visual rhythms. Psychol. Res. 68, 252–270. doi: 10.1007/s00426- upbeat music, while memory seems to benefit from both upbeat and downbeat music.
003-0143-8 Front. Aging Neurosci. 6:284. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00284
Riener, C. R., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., and Clore, G. (2011). An effect of This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
mood on the perception of geographical slant. Cogn. Emot. 25, 174–182. doi: 10. Copyright © 2014 Bottiroli, Rosi, Russo, Vecchi and Cavallini. This is an open-access
1080/02699931003738026 article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
Sacks, O. (2006). The power of music. Brain 129, 2528–2532. doi: 10.1093/ BY). The use, distribution and reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
brain/awl234 the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
Salthouse, T. A. (2004). What and when of cognitive aging. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
13, 140–144. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00293.x reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2014 | Volume 6 | Article 284 | 7