Impact of Classical Music Listening on Cognitive and Functional Performances in Middle-Aged Women

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the journal for the opportunity to participate in this review. All comments or observations mentioned below are constructive in nature.

 

ABSTRACT

- Specific errors have been detected in the writing (e.g., lines 16-17). Please review carefully.

- Lines 27-29: the conclusion at the end of the abstract about effectiveness in general is reviewable, since the significant changes were in half of the performance variables, and in half of the cognitive variables.

 

KEYWORDS

- Of the eight keywords, three of them use the term "health". It is suggested to search for a keyword that synthesizes all three.

- Additionally, the last three keywords could be integrated as "middle-aged women". However, it is suggested that the keywords do not match 100% with the words used in the title.

 

INTRODUCTION

- The background is correct and sufficiently explained.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS - PARTICIPANTS

- Line 82: Citation #30 is not correct, since the previous citation was #25. Check the citation order of the entire manuscript for good measure.

- The process of access and recruitment of the sample is not defined.

- Where did the recruitment take place? How did you contact the women?

- The descriptive data of the finally selected participating women are mentioned before the inclusion criteria, when it should be the other way around.

- Why the age range between 55 and 60 years old? Why is it not broader, since with a younger age we would also be talking about a middle-aged woman?

- Line 87: healthy woman is defined as an inclusion criterion, but it is certainly not well defined. What determines her health? Diet? Exercise? What are the indicators to achieve this?

- There are inclusion criteria but not exclusion criteria. These are required.

- Line 89: What risks and benefits of the study were communicated to participants?

- Were the women anonymous or were they part of some group or association?

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS - EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL

- Line 95: What was the sessions schedule? What was the duration of each session?

- Line 100: What did the randomness depend on?

- Line 103: What does it mean that the execution was randomized?

- The experimental protocol is vaguely explained.

- The choice of the musical piece seems random, there is no justification or description of its characteristics. In this type of studies, tempo (beats per minute) is usually indicated.

- Line 105: Was the material used (smartphone and ear headphones) provided by the researcher or by any of the participants? The origin of all materials implemented in the experimental phase must be shown.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS - FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

- Line 108: why the choice of this tests battery over others for this study? The existence of these tests in the scientific literature has not been described in the Introduction.

 

RESULTS

- Considering the results in Table 1, referring to functional performance in the 2minute step test, determined by the number of repetitions, music condition (8,50±0.98 reps) achieves less performance than no-music condition (9.49±1.21 reps).

- In the Table 2 legend it is indicated that the confidence interval is 90%, when it is actually 95% (as shown in the table itself).

 

DISCUSSION

- Discussion does not explain why there have been no significant differences in the work memory test, when other studies where they have been obtained are also mentioned (line 227).

- Last paragraph of the Discussion: it must be taken into account that isolated tests should not be extrapolated so exhaustively with performance at a general level. To do this, more sessions would have to be done, other tests more applicable to a real context, and follow-up for a longer period of time.

 

CONCLUSIONS

- As also indicated in a comment on the Abstract, they should make more specific reference to those results in which there have actually been significant differences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A careful review is required to correct spelling errors or some grammatical syntax. In general terms it is acceptable, although it could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Please see the attach

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of listening to classical music on functional performance (upper and lower body strength, functional mobility and aerobic endurance) and cognitive (attentional capacities and working memory (WM)) performances. Subjects were twenty four 50 and 60 years old women. 

Functional and cognitive performances were assessed in two-auditory conditions (no-music vs with music conditions) using Timed Up and Go (TUG) test for the functional mobility,  Arm Curl test and 30S Chair Stand Tests for the upper and lower body strength, respectively and the 2-minute Step test for aerobic endurance. In addition, to assess the attentional capacities and the WM, a simple reaction time (SRT) test and Corsi Block-Tapping Task were used.

Results indicated that listening to music significantly decreased the scores of TUG test (p<0.001) and capacities (p<0.05), and increased the 2-minute Step test values (p<0.001) compared to the no-music condition. However, there were no significant changes  for the upper and lower body strength and  WM. 

I would like to thank authors for this interesting study. I believe there is a merit for this journal. This study had a good design and intervention. However, I have some questions. First, reliability of tests and measurements should be reported. Second, it seems that experimental intervention was only three days. Authors should explain the logic behind " why three days intervention preferred". Lastly, up to date (2022 and above) literature needed to improve discussion and conclusion sections including practical applications for the future. I look forward to seeing edited version of this interesting manuscript. Best regards. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

 

Please see the attachment

Thank you 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank authors for the recent edition of this manuscript. I believe that current version of this manuscript acceptable. Authors answered all questions and edited accordingly. Best regards.