Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36878928›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Unfounded authority, underpowered studies, and non-transparent reporting perpetuate the Mozart effect myth: a multiverse meta-analysis.

Sandra Oberleiter, Jakob Pietschnig

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Taylor Swift versus Mozart: music preferences of C57BL/6J mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sandra OberleiterDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010, Vienna, Austria. sandra.oberleiter@univie.ac.at.
Jakob PietschnigDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, an ostensible Mozart effect, suggesting beneficial influences of listening to the sonata KV448 on epilepsy, has been extensively covered in popular media outlets. However, the evidential value of such a potential effect seems unclear. Here, we present the first formal meta-analysis on this topic, based on k = 8 studies (N = 207). Further published studies that met our inclusion criteria had to be omitted due to insufficient reporting and author non-responsiveness on data requests. In three independent analyses, we observed non-significant trivial-to-small summary effects for listening to Mozart KV448 or other musical stimuli on epilepsy or other medical conditions (g range: 0.09-0.43). Bias and sensitivity analyses suggested that these effects were likely inflated and non-trivial effects were driven by isolated leverage points. Multiverse analyses conformed to these results, showing inconsistent evidential patterns. Low primary study power and consequently lacking evidential value indicates that there is only little reason to suspect a specific Mozart effect. In all, listening to music, let alone a specific kind of sonata, does not appear to have any beneficial effect on epilepsy. Unfounded authority, underpowered studies, and non-transparent reporting appear to be the main drivers of the Mozart effect myth.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionAuscultationAcetamidesGroup ProcessesPyrimidinesAcetamidesPyrimidineszaleplon

Identifiers

PMID36878928
PMCPMC9988829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.