4.2 Article

Long-term enhancement of maze learning in mice via a generalized Mozart effect

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 791-796

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/016164105X63647

关键词

epilepsy; cortical column; trion model of cortex; fMRI; EEG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: An animal model of the 'generalized Mozart effect' (GME) - enhanced/normalized higher brain function in response to music exposure - has been established. We extend those results in two studies using another species (mice). Study 1: (1) maze testing after music exposure was extended to a minimum of 6 hours; (2) no exposure to music in utero. Study 2: (1) music exposure time further reduced; (2) maze testing extended to 24 hours. Methods: Study 1: two mouse groups were exposed to music continuously for 10 hours per day for 10 weeks (Group 1: Mozart's Sonata K.448, Group 11: Beethoven's Fur Elise). After 10 weeks, the ability to negotiate a T-maze was assessed (recording working time in maze, number of errors). Maze ability was tested 6 hours following the last music exposure. Study 2: two mouse groups were exposed periodically to music (58% silence) 10 hours per day for 10 weeks. Experiments after 10 weeks examined the groups' abilities to run the maze (recording working time/errors). Experiments were conducted 24 hours following the last music exposure. Results: The Mozart group exhibited significant enhancements compared with the control mice in both studies, i.e. significantly lower working time (p < 0.05) and committed fewer errors. Discussion: Observation of GME in another species supports its generality for the mammalian cortex. The absence of a GME in fMRI studies for the control music also indicates a neurophysiological basis. With extended exposure, GME is a long-term effect, indicating potential clinical importance. It has been demonstrated that GME reduces neuropathological spiking significantly in epileptics. We discuss the relevance of this study for epilepsy treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据