TL;DR: Popular advice about music and mental performance rests almost entirely on one mistake: music is treated as a single intervention and a single answer is sought. The evidence does not give a single answer. It gives task-dependent answers, some of which point in opposite directions. Terry, Karageorghis, Curran, Martin and Parsons-Smith’s multilevel meta-analysis, published in Psychological Bulletin in 2020, computed 598 effect sizes from 139 studies covering 3,599 participants and found that listening to music during exercise shifts affective valence in a positive direction, enhances physical performance, reduces perceived exertion and improves physiological efficiency. Against that, Perham and Vizard’s study in Applied Cognitive Psychology showed that in a serial recall task both liked and disliked music impaired performance relative to quiet, with no difference between the two conditions, which makes the most common piece of advice, listen to music you enjoy while studying, exactly the thing that does not work for that task. Kämpfe, Sedlmeier and Renkewitz’s meta-analysis of adult listeners reported a near-zero overall effect, and attributed it to opposing specific effects averaging each other out: background music disturbs the reading process and has small detrimental effects on memory, while improving emotional reactions and achievement in sport. Below: a decision table telling you what to do by task, an original comparison of how much evidence stands behind each claim, and an explicit record of why the unsourced percentages in the previous version of this article were removed.
One of the most concrete tests of managing yourself like a CEO is this: do you know which jobs your tool helps with and which ones it damages, or do you use it for every job because you like it?
Music is the textbook case. Almost everyone listens while studying, exercising and writing. Almost nobody separates which task benefits from which. And the research literature says the cost of not making that separation is real.
First, the wrong question
“Is listening to music good for the brain?” has no answer, because the question is badly formed.
Kämpfe, Sedlmeier and Renkewitz’s meta-analysis of adult listeners showed exactly this. The global analysis produced a null effect. But as the authors stressed, that null does not mean music does nothing; it most likely results from specific effects in opposite directions cancelling out when averaged.
When they disaggregated, the picture was this: background music disturbs the reading process, has some small detrimental effects on memory, and by contrast produces a positive impact on emotional reactions and improves achievement in sport.
So music neither raises nor lowers mental performance. It raises it for some tasks and lowers it for others, and knowing which is which is the entire piece of advice.
Music you like does not save you
The most common escape line is this: “But I listen to music I like, it does not bother me.”
Perham and Vizard tested that directly. Participants performed a serial recall task under five conditions: quiet, liked music, disliked music, steady-state speech and changing-state speech. Performance was poorer in both music conditions and in changing-state speech than in quiet and steady-state speech. The critical finding was that there was no difference between the two music conditions.
The implication is clean: in a task requiring you to hold sequential information, what determines music’s disruptive effect is not whether you like it but whether the sound is acoustically changing. The song you love is changing for precisely that reason. Your preference does not protect you.
This is the part of the article that should most directly change a reader’s behaviour. If you are trying to hold terms for an exam, an order for a presentation, a list or a flow of code in mind, the music you like is a worse choice than silence.
The decision table, by task
Table 1. Music decision by task and the evidence behind it, CEOtudent editorial framework, compiled from published meta-analyses and experimental findings
| Task type | Direction of evidence | What to do | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise and endurance | Positive and consistent | Use music; this is the best-supported use | 139 studies, 3,599 participants, 598 effect sizes |
| Serial recall, memorisation, learning terms | Negative, independent of preference | Choose silence; music you like is not an exception | Serial recall experiment, five-condition comparison |
| Reading and text comprehension | Negative | Turn off music with lyrics | Adult listener meta-analysis |
| Mood and getting started on a task | Positive | Listen before starting, not during | Adult listener meta-analysis |
| Routine, repetitive, low cognitive load | Neutral or slightly positive | Open; leave it to personal preference | Near-zero overall effect |
The most useful row in that table is the fourth. Music’s positive effect on mood is on the demonstrated side; its negative effect on memory is also on the demonstrated side. You cannot use both at once, but you can sequence them. Music before you start, silence while you work.
The strength of evidence is not the same for every claim
What popular articles conceal is that the sentences “music helps in sport” and “music increases creativity” are not backed by the same quantity of evidence.
Table 2. Comparison of evidential strength by claim, CEOtudent editorial framework
| Claim | Type of evidence | Scale | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise performance, mood and perceived exertion improve | Multilevel meta-analysis | 139 studies, 3,599 participants | High |
| Music impairs serial recall, preference makes no difference | Controlled experiment, five conditions | Single study, direct test | Moderate to high |
| Background music disturbs reading, small detriment to memory | Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis | Limited studies allowing effect size calculation | Moderate |
| A particular composer raises intelligence | Meta-analysis, roughly 40 studies, over 3,000 participants | d = 0.37 against a non-musical stimulus | Low; the paper’s own title rejects the claim |
| A particular tempo or genre raises creativity | No primary evidence found that tests this directly | None | Very low |
The last two rows do the real work of this update. The claim popularised in the 1990s, that listening to a particular sonata improves mental performance, was meta-analysed by Pietschnig, Voracek and Formann across roughly 40 studies and more than 3,000 participants. Compared against a non-musical stimulus or no stimulus at all, the effect was small at d = 0.37, and the title under which the paper appeared in Intelligence states the authors’ view of the claim plainly.
What was removed from this article, and why
The previous version of this piece contained three numerical claims with no source given: that athletes need 7 percent less oxygen with music, that we produce 9 percent more dopamine from music we like, and that the optimal tempo for exercise is 145 beats per minute.
All three were removed. The reason is this: each was presented as though it rested on a specific study, none named a study, and none could be traced to a verifiable source. If you cannot verify a number, you should not publish it; a number sounding plausible does not make it true.
What replaced them is less striking and real: that music improves physiological efficiency in exercise, supported by a meta-analysis of 139 studies. We give no single percentage, because the effect varies by measure and by exercise type and one figure would misrepresent it.
The same version also carried claims about dementia and Alzheimer’s patients. Those are clinical claims; the scope of this article is everyday performance in healthy adults, and we did not examine the evidence needed to assess clinical claims here. They were therefore removed. Clinical music therapy is a separate and serious literature, not a topic to touch in passing.
The workable protocol
The evidence reduces to four rules that are easy to apply.
Choose the tool by task, not by mood. The decision point is not “do I feel like music” but “does this task require holding sequential information”. If it does, silence.
Put music in front of the task. The mood effect is real and useful; the disruptive effect appears during the task. Listen for the ten minutes before you begin, then turn it off. That way you take the demonstrated benefit without paying the demonstrated cost.
Do not hesitate during exercise. This is the use the literature supports most clearly. Do not trust the precise prescriptions circulating about tempo and genre, though; that precision is not in the evidence.
Keep music with lyrics away from reading and writing. Disruption of the reading process is one of the disaggregated findings in the meta-analysis.
Keep your own data. The findings here are group averages. Whether they hold for you is something only measurement will tell: do two tasks of the same type, one in silence and one with music, and record the result. That is the difference between accepting advice and deciding from your own data.
Frequently asked questions
Is instrumental or lyric-free music different?
Probably less disruptive, because the mechanism of disruption concerns acoustic variability and lyrics increase that variability. But the studies examined here did not show lyric-free music to be equivalent to silence; there is only a mechanism suggesting music with lyrics is worse. For work requiring serial recall, the default should still be silence.
What about white noise or nature sounds?
The evidence reviewed here does not test them. In Perham and Vizard’s comparison, steady-state speech, the condition in which a single repeated sound did not impair performance, suggests variability is what matters. Steady, low-variability sounds being less harmful is consistent with that mechanism, but it was not directly tested.
I feel like I focus better with music while studying. Is that wrong?
Your feeling may be real and your performance may still be dropping. The meta-analysis finding a positive effect on emotional reactions and a negative one on memory shows exactly that split. Feeling better and doing better are different measurements, and music can push them in opposite directions.
So should I never listen to music while working?
It depends on the task. For routine, repetitive, low-load work the evidence is neutral and you are free. For memorisation, reading and work requiring sequential information the evidence is negative. Make the distinction on what the task demands.
Is one genre or tempo superior to others?
The evidence reviewed here does not support that. Recommendations prescribing particular tempos are widespread but could not be traced to a verifiable primary source, and were removed from this article for that reason.
Sources
- Terry, Karageorghis, Curran, Martin and Parsons-Smith, Effects of Music in Exercise and Sport: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin, volume 146, issue 2, 2020, pages 91 to 117
- Kämpfe, Sedlmeier and Renkewitz, The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis, Psychology of Music, volume 39, issue 4, 2011, pages 424 to 448
- Perham and Vizard, Can preference for background music mediate the irrelevant sound effect?, Applied Cognitive Psychology, volume 25, issue 4, 2011, pages 625 to 631
- Pietschnig, Voracek and Formann, Mozart effect-Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis, Intelligence, volume 38, issue 3, 2010, pages 314 to 323
- Salamé and Baddeley, Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, volume 41, 1989
This content was compiled with the support of AI following in-depth research, then written and prepared for publication by the CEOtudent editorial team.
This post is also available in:
