Binaural Beats and Pain Endurance: A Double Blind, Randomised Study Into The Effectiveness of An Auditory Phenomenon On Cold Pain Endurance.

An Investigation into the effects of Binaural Beat phenomena on Cold Pain Endurance
Goldsmiths College, University of London Student: Peter D. Bryant (33258242) Supervisor: Prof. Joydeep Bhattacharya 12/09/13 Word Count = 9,999 Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of an MSc in Music, Mind and Brain
Binaural Beat Study
Music, Mind and Brain
Goldsmiths College
Acknowledgements
I am immensely grateful to Robert Davies for all his help and support with the preparation, testing and amending of the equipment required for this study. I also wish to thank Matt Kendall of Interesting Talks London who assisted in the participant recruitment process by promoting the study website (www.bbstudy.co.uk) to over five thousand people across London. I am grateful to Dr. Daniel Mllensiefen and Dr. Lauren Stewart who have provided assistance and support throughout the experimentation phase thank you. I also wish to thank all of the fifty-one participants who took part and withstood a painful experience for effectively no reason other than to (hopefully!) further scientific understanding into binaural beats. Finally, I wish to thank Professor Joydeep Bhattacharya for all his help and support with this project. His guidance, knowledge and influence was essential to its completion and success.
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
List of Tables
Table 1: Dependent and Independent Variables ...................................................................... 16 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Normalised Data for all reaction time conditions............... 24 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Raw Score Reaction Time Conditions. ............................. 25 Table 4: Normality tests for non-normalised reaction time data. ............................................ 26 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Normalised Reaction Time Scores .................................... 27 Table 6: Descriptive statistics for Binaural Beats against Monaural Beats. ............................ 28 Table 7: Descriptive statistics for Beat Frequency. ................................................................. 28 Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for control conditions (Music, Silence and White Noise). ..... 29 Table 9: Pairwise comparison of control conditions showing a main effect of Music against Silence and White Noise. ......................................................................................................... 30 Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for subjective measures of Liking ......................................... 31 Table 11: Estimated means for subjective measures of Liking ............................................... 31 Table 12: Normality test for Liking data (Non-Normalised). .................................................. 31 Table 13: Normality tests of Liking for Normalised data. ....................................................... 32 Table 14: Pairwise comparisons for all Liking data according to condition (only significant main effects shown). ................................................................................................................ 34 Table 15: Normality tests for measures of Pain Reduction (Non-Normalised). ...................... 35 Table 16: Normality tests for Pain Reduction (Normalised Data). .......................................... 35 Table 17: Descriptive statistics for subjective measures of Pain Reduction. .......................... 36 Table 18: Mean Estimates for subjective measures of Pain Reduction. .................................. 36 Table 19: Pairwise Comparisons for subjective measures of Pain Reduction demonstrating a host of significant differences, in particular for the control conditions of Music and White Noise. ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 20: Descriptive statistics for Gender showing a significant difference of means according to Mean Reaction Time. .......................................................................................... 39 Table 21: Descriptive Statistics for Anxiety against Mean Reaction Time (in Seconds) ........ 43 Table 22: Normality tests for Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index Scores .................... 47 Table 23: Descriptive statistics for Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index ....................... 47 Table 24: Descriptive statistics for Body Vigilance Scale scores after a median split. ........... 48 Table 25: Descriptive statistics for measures of heart rate. ..................................................... 49 Table 26: Normality tests for heart rate ................................................................................... 49
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
List of Figures
Figure 1: Depiction of the experimental design ....................................................................... 16 Figure 2: Depiction of the warm water tank with surface and depth thermometers. ............... 19 Figure 3: Depiction of the ice tank complete with ice chamber, circulatory pump, surface and depth thermometers and air compression button. .................................................................... 19 Figure 4: Depiction of the two warm tank thermometers ........................................................ 20 Figure 5: Depiction of the two cold tank thermometers. ......................................................... 20 Figure 6: Sennheiser HD 202 Closed Back On-ear Stereo Headphones used throughout the experiment................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 7: The temperature and humidity monitor used throughout the experiment ................ 20 Figure 8: Blood pressure monitor used throughout experiment .............................................. 20 Figure 9: A Comparison of means across all raw reaction time conditions showing a main effect for the music condition. ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 10: Depiction of means of normalised reaction time data showing a main effect for the Music condition. ...................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Comparison of reaction time means across control conditions showing a main effect of Music. ........................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 12: Comparison of mean liking data across all conditions showing a main effect for the Music condition/ ................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 13: Comparison of means for subjective measures of pain reduction across all conditions showing a main effect of Music with silence being significantly the worst condition against all other conditions. ..................................................................................... 37 Figure 14: Mean reaction time against Gender ........................................................................ 39 Figure 15: Correlation figure of r .42 for pain threshold against liking rating (pooled across all participants and all conditions) showing a significant effect for liking in improving reaction time duration. ............................................................................................................. 40 Figure 16: Correlation figure of r = .53 for pain threshold against pain reduction rating (polled across all participants and conditions) indicating that participants who rated a condition as less painful showed increased reaction time scores. ......................................... 41 Figure 17: Correlation figure of r = .70 for pain reduction rating again liking rating (pooled across all participants and all conditions) indicating that the two measures of liking and pain reduction rating are highly correlated. ..................................................................................... 42 Figure 18: Significance test of correlations of subjective measures (Liking, Pain Reduction and Reaction Time) showing a strong significant difference between the correlations of subjective measures. ................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 19: A correlation figure of Zung general anxiety rating against mean reaction time demonstrating that the higher a participants initial anxiety score, the less their mean reaction times were across all conditions. ............................................................................................. 44 Figure 20: Comparison of first and last conditions of the experiment according to mean reaction time............................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 21: Comparison of blocks examining correlation. They are highly correlated showing that participants show a maintained performance across all nine trials. .................................. 46 Figure 22: Median spilt of Gold-MSI data against mean reaction time. ................................. 48 Figure 23: A 9 Way ANOVA of mean heart rate against experimental condition. ................. 50 Figure 24: Pairwise comparisons for reaction time data .......................................................... 63 Figure 25: Pairwise comparison data by condition (non-normalised data) ............................. 65 Figure 26: Complete pairwise comparisons for liking and pain reduction. ............................. 66 4
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 4 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 What are Binaural Beats?................................................................................................... 7 The Study of Pain............................................................................................................. 11 Anxiety............................................................................................................................. 12 Musicians and Non-Musicians ......................................................................................... 13 The Binaural Beat Study .................................................................................................. 14 Design ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Participants ............................................................................................................................... 17 Materials and Stimuli ............................................................................................................... 18 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 22 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Reaction Times .................................................................................................................... 24 Subjective Measures ........................................................................................................ 30 Subjective Measure Correlations ..................................................................................... 40 Gold MSI ............................................................................................................................. 46 Body Vigilance Scale ........................................................................................................... 48 Biological Measures......................................................................................................... 49 Stimuli Detection ............................................................................................................. 51 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 52 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 58 Appendix A: Non-significant Data .......................................................................................... 62 Appendix B: Anxiety Questionnaires (BVS and ZARS) ......................................................... 67 Appendix C: Participant information documentation. ............................................................. 70 Appendix D: Calculations ........................................................................................................ 73
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Abstract
Binaural beats have anecdotally been claimed to decrease the perception of pain and, therefore, increase pain endurance. This repeated measures: double blind study examined three frequencies of binaural beat against three identical monaural beats along with three control conditions, music, silence and white noise utilising a cold pressor pain task. There was no main effect for binaural beats against any of the conditions; however, there was a main effect for music against silence F (2, 100) = 7.36, p < .001. Furthermore, musicians performed significantly better at the cold pain task than non-musicians t = 3.52, p < .001. Further significant results were found in anxiety scores, gender differences in reaction time and participants inability to detect the stimuli as binaural (particularly in non-musicians).
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Introduction
What are Binaural Beats?
In 1839, H. W. Dove, a physicist and meteorologist, discovered the phenomenon of binaural beats (Dove, 1839) (Oster, 1973). These beats are illusionary auditory artefacts created by the interference of two independently pitched sine tones, both of which are in the frequency range of 100 (Kasprzak, 2011) to 1000 hertz (Licklider, Webster, & Hedlun, 1950) (Perrott & Nelson, 1969). When presented simultaneously and bilaterally, (each tone is presented independently to each ear) these tones generate the sensation of beating when no objective beating is taking place in physical reality. This is because when the difference between the two independent frequencies is between one and thirty hertz the auditory mechanisms within the human brain fail to separate out the two sounds and fuse them together as if they had fused in physical reality rather than subjectively inside the listeners neural pathway (Turow & Lane, 2011). These tones can vary in frequency by a specific margin (of up to thirty hertz difference between the base tone and the fluctuating tone at frequencies between two hundred to five hundred hertz (Gu, Wright, & Green, 1995; Slatky, 1992). Any pitch difference larger than this and the cocktail party effect begins to take place with each note being treated as a separate sound source. These artefacts exist partly due to the size of the human head and the auditory processing mechanisms which are specifically designed to detect sound pressure differences in this range; this is the same auditory mechanism which allows us to locate a sound with a high degree of accuracy; it is, therefore essential for the survival of the human species. It just so happens that this evolutionary development can be exploited in order to create the best desired perceptual beating effect for application in a number of domains (Gelfand, 2009). Between 1839 and the mid-nineteenth century, the phenomenon had largely been regarded as a scientific and perceptual curiosity with remarkably few studies conducted in their possible application (which may have been 7
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
down to a misunderstanding of their functioning) (Oster, 1973). Today, however, binaural beats are gaining in popularity, particularly with the rise of the internet where many downloads, apps and related paraphernalia can be found which claim to use binaural beats in the treatment of a host of mental and physical problems including anxiety, sleep difficulties and even erectile dysfunction. The plausibility of these claims is highly disputed with exceedingly few studies published (some domains have no published evidence at all) whilst the majority of papers report on the use of binaural beats as a panacea for stress and anxiety. Anecdotal evidence, however, appears to be rife among this online community with claims of miraculous cures and quick fix solutions to genuine mental health issues. The entire industry rests on a single hypothesis; that of brainwave entrainment. Brainwave entrainment is an early theory that was developed alongside the invention of the EEG machine in the early 20th century (Oster, 1973). A theory of brainwave entrainment was first postulated as a supporting theory for evidence from the visual domain in that the corresponding visual stimuli to binaural beats (such as highly brief flashes of light at the same frequency rates as binaural beats one to thirty hertz) can entrain brain waves and thus influence the conscious state of the participant (Herrmann, 2001; Budzynski, 2006). This theory was later extrapolated into the auditory medium and applied to the phenomena of binaural beats (Foster, 1990). Most of the modern day studies on binaural beats were conducted in the latter half of the 20th century - possibly due to their demand for synthetic audio technology (the phenomena, owing to the use of pure sinusoidal tones do not normally exist in the natural environment (Oster, 1973). The results of these studies have been mixed, some showing effectiveness in the application of binaural beat technology for stress management, pain reduction, and behavioural improvement (Huang & Charyton, 2008) along with affect vigilance (attention) and improvement of mood (Lane, Kasian, Owens, & Marsh, 1998) whilst others have shown none or very little effects, for example, with pain perception
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
(Wahbe, Calabrese, Zwickey, & Zajde, 2007; Stevens, et al., 2003). This lack of research on the topic has not stopped the phenomena being claimed to be able to induce a change in consciousness state along with a large amount of other desirable mental affects and even used an auditory drug (gethightnow.com, 2013). Their use in this domain has been supported by claims such as years of research and development, and unmatched standards when a total of three papers can be found on the so called leading researchers website (I-Doser.com, 2012). This is anecdotally regarded as being a feature of brainwave entrainment although the supporting evidence and research for brainwave entrainment, contrary to popular opinion is severely lacking in research and, therefore, supporting evidence (Turow & Lane, 2011). There are several contrasting theories of how binaural beats may entrain neural networks within the brain and produce neural rhythms within the cortex . One popular hypothesis is that binaural beat signals influence the brains reticular activating system, a network of systems which control nervous system arousal. This in turn, over time, may stimulate the thalamus and cortex to alter arousal states in accordance with the reticular activating system and, therefore, consciousness utilizing neurotransmitters and other inter-cortical signals (Turow & Lane, 2011). Other theories have included the trapping of periodic frequencies by event related potentials (Kaernbach, Schroger, & Gunter, 1998) with brainwaves synchronising to non-binaural phenomena with repetition rates between one and forty hertz (Will & Berg, 2007). Perhaps the most notable contributor to the research field on binaural beats has been the Monroe Institute, which was specifically established to investigate binaural beat phenomena and consciousness by the late Robert Monroe (1915 1995) in 1956 (The Monroe Institute, 2013). The centre has claimed a number of successes with binaural beat technology with its website offering products supported by the institutes research. However, it remains a highly mysterious company considering its unique status, publishing only three
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
books in over forty years and around fifty papers (the vast majority published before 2000) on a range of pseudoscientific topics including Remote Viewing, Reiki and Neuro-Linguistic Programming among others (The Monroe Institute, 2013). Indeed, the centre has claimed that binaural beats are in themselves, not particularly effective and that it is the accompanying music, noise and even linguistic suggestion which is actually responsible for the overall effects (Turow & Lane, 2011). However, binaural beats are genuine, observable phenomena which can be experienced by anyone with a correctly functioning auditory pathway and bilaterally functioning ears (Fitzpatrick, Roberts, Kuwada, Kim, & Filipovic, 2009; Zeng, Kong, Michaelwski, & Starr, 2004; Altenmuller, 1989) and even in other species such as cats (Kuwada, Yin, & Wickesberg, 1979). It is the claims which surround them that are lacking in empirical research and subject to considerable hyperbole. Some of these claims (such as anxiety reduction and mood alteration) have been subject to examination but not one of the claims has been subjected to meta-analytical scrutiny, simply because there is a significant lack of published studies within this area. However, of the studies which have been published, researchers have found binaural beats to be effective at maintaining alertness (Lane, Kasian, Owens, & Marsh, 1998), to treat attention deficit disorder (ADD) (Kliempt, Ruta, Ogston, Landeck, & Martay, 1999), to relax (Le Scouarnec, et al., 2001), to meditate (Padmanabhan, Hildreth, & Laws, 2005), and to (possibly) manage pain (Wahbeh, Calabrese, Zwickey, & Zajdel, 2007). However, these studies are considerably small, for example; the Wahbeh pain study had only eight participants, and have yet to be replicated which represents a considerably uncertain evidence base for the application of binaural beats to genuine medical issues.
10
Binaural Beat Study The Study of Pain
Goldsmiths College
The perception of pain is now widely acknowledged as a highly subjective phenomenon (Koyama, McHaffie, Laurienti, & Coghill, 2005). Pain perception can be significantly affected by the placebo and expectation effects such as with the injection of a saline solution (Melzack & Wall, 1996) and by social features, for example, whether you suffer alone or with a friend (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2005). Furthermore, the theories and history of pain perception is anything but straightforward, with a range of ideas as to how pain is created, transmitted, and perceived (Meldrum, 2011). There is also evidence to suggest that pain perception varies according to gender (Paulson, Minoshima, Morrow, & Casey, 1998) with women in particular demonstrating heightened experience to pain when anxious. One of the most common methods of inducing pain in a clinical or research setting is by employing a cold pressor test as it is thought to mimic the effects of chronic pain conditions effectively (Mitchell, MacDonald, & Brodie, 2004). However, it does suffer from weaknesses such as the need to ensure a constant temperature (set generally between one to five degrees Celsius) and has been reported to produce different results depending on the gender of the participant (Mitchell, MacDonald, & Brodie, 2004). In order to achieve internal validity, I needed a method of inducing pain that would be highly repeatable, non-invasive and most importantly, safe. The cold pressor test is a cardiovascular test where participants immerse their arm or hand into ice water for as long as possible up to a pre-specified time limit (most often one minute). It has been used as a mechanism of inducing pain for psychological experiments since it was first used for an experiment in 1936 (Mitchell L. A., 2013). The technique operates by stimulating the sympathetic nervous system as the heat from blood entering the arm is rapidly lost to the surrounding water. This causes a constriction of blood vessels in the submerged limb with the participants blood pressure and 11
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
heart rate increasing in order to maintain homeostasis. It can, therefore, be used as an objective and highly repeatable method of recording a participants pain endurance and threshold. It is also extremely safe, with the participant remaining in full control of how long they undergo the pain stimulus with no potential for damage to body tissues. Cooling body tissue is regarded by experts as comparatively better for it than heating body tissue. The process of cooling actually slows down cell decay and death in patients who have suffered a cardiac arrest and is now used regularly as a method of preserving a patients vital organs whilst resuscitation attempts are performed (Parnia, 2013, pp. 74-77).
Anxiety Anxiety is defined in the OED as a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease about something with an uncertain outcome (Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2013). It is associated with a range of somatic, emotional, cognitive, and behavioural components (Seligman, Walker, & Rosenhan, 2001). There have been a number of scales designed to measure anxiety. Each scale has been designed for a different setting, usually in a clinical environment. This study shall use the Zung Anxiety Self-Assessment Scale (see appendix B) since it is one of the most applicable to the participants anxiety at the present time and does not ask them to focus on the previous two weeks', unlike some other scales (Hamilton, 1959). The Zung Anxiety Self-Assessment Scale is a twenty item checklist which rates a participants general level of anxiety out of a possible maximum score of one hundred. The test uses a four point Likert-type rating system similar to other anxiety tests such as the Hamilton Anxiety Rating System (HAM-A) and the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) (Hamilton, 1959; Humphris, Morrison, & Lindsay, 1995). First developed in 1971: this scale has been heavily validated as a clinical tool for the assessment of the anxiety level of outpatients (Zung, 1971; Zung, 1974). The application of this scale may shine light on a 12
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
possible selection bias within this study since it is unlikely that someone with extreme anxiety would apply to be a participant for an experiment involving significant amounts of pain. Indeed, there were a number of participants who refused to participate when they discovered that the application of pain was an essential part of the study. This fact is reflected in the results, by which the majority of participants demonstrated scores in the lower half of the anxiety scale there were no scores above sixty one.
Musicians and Non-Musicians
I am also looking at the differences in musical sophistication in participants and their ability to cope with the pain endurance task. Previous research has uncovered differences in neural activation of musicians and non-musicians although this was in the gamma frequency range which is outside the frequency range of my study (Ioannou & Bhattacharya, 2011). Nevertheless, there are a host of phenomena which musicians exhibit as a result of their neural plasticity by way of their skills and training a typical example would be absolute pitch which has been suggested to be the result of a hyper-connectivity of neuronal structures giving rise to its synaesthesia-like properties (Loui, Li, Hohmann, & Schlaug, 2011). I wish to see if these effects exhibit themselves at a behavioural level and want to discover whether musical training affects a participants ability to utilize binaural beats (or indeed, music) to help cope with or otherwise alleviate the pain possibly due to differences in cortical wiring. It has been shown that practising music and even listening to it can promote brain plasticity across a humans entire life span (Wan & Schlaug, 2010) along with shaping structural brain development on a macroscopic scale (Hyde, et al., 2009). I also wish to discover if musicians are better at identifying binaural beats than non-musicians.
13
Binaural Beat Study The Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
In this experimental study, I shall attempt to answer several hypotheses regarding the application of binaural beat technology in cold pain endurance. I shall examine whether the presence or absence of binaural quality to the beating effect has any effect on the duration of pain endurance to which participants expose themselves. I shall examine whether the frequency (Delta 4 hertz, Theta 8 hertz and Alpha 14 hertz) of the beat makes any difference to a participants pain threshold and whether any of these conditions are more effective than Music, Silence or White Noise. I shall also examine the effect of general anxiety, musical sophistication and body vigilance on the reaction times of the participants and across all conditions. Furthermore, I shall examine a participants ability to identify whether the beats are binaural thereby examining expectation effects which have been shown to be considerably likely to contribute to the effects of binaural beats in other studies in particular a small pain study conducted on eight participants where it was argued that expectation effects were responsible for the overall effect of the experiment (Wahbeh, Calabrese, Zwickey, & Zajde, 2007). Participants will undergo a moderately painful experience by submerging their arm in 0oC water for a specified duration (3 minutes) or as long as they can whilst continuously listening to binaural beats. I have chosen this timing in order to reduce the possibility of ceiling effects and to ensure that even participants with unusually high pain tolerances feel sufficiently challenged. Before commencing with the experimental procedure with any participants, full ethical approval was granted by the Goldsmiths Psychology Department Ethics Committee. Given the scope and uncertainty of the literature, I am hesitant about finding an effect for binaural beats against other conditions other than silence. I believe that music will perform favourably with silence being the worst condition, followed shortly by white noise. I believe that the lower frequency binaural beats will outperform the other higher conditions in this situation as they are more likely to 14
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
contribute towards a relaxation effect and have shown similar results in previous studies (Wahbeh, Calabrese, Zwickey, & Zajde, 2007; Kliempt, Ruta, Ogston, Landeck, & Martay, 1999). Furthermore, I expect that participants will not be able to identify which sound is binaural this is somewhat crucial to the validity of the experimental procedure which has been designed to reduce effects due to expectation as much as possible. If participants are able to identify the binaural or monaural stimuli, it seriously threatens the internal validity of the experiment; participants can consciously choose how long they keep their hands in the water according to how much they believe binaural beats to be effective.
15
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Design
This study was a repeated measures, double blind trial with each condition lasting a maximum of three minutes. There were five dependent variables and five independent variables which are shown below:
Table 1: Dependent and Independent Variables
Dependent Variable Reaction time of hand in water Heart Rate Blood Pressure Liking Rating (1 to 10) Pain Reduction Rating (1 to 10)
Independent Variable Detection of Stimuli (Binaural or Monaural) Frequency of Beat Musical Sophistication Score BVS Score General Anxiety Rating
A repeated measures ANOVA will be used to analyse the data to examine the relationship (if any) between the control conditions against both monaural and binaural beats and then monaural beats against binaural beats. Microsoft Excel (2013) and IBM SPSS statistics (19) shall be used for the statistical analysis. Every participant will partake in all nine conditions including three control conditions, music, silence and white noise which will be randomised.
Figure 1: Depiction of the experimental design
16
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Participants
There were fifty-one participants for this study recruited over a three month period (June August 2013). Twenty five males and twenty six females between the ages of eighteen and sixty-three with an average age of thirty-one. Participants were recruited by several methods the most prolific of which was via the dedicated study website (www.bbstudy.co.uk) which went live in March 2013. As many participants, from as varied a background as possible were encouraged to apply. The experiment had remarkably few qualifying standards other than an ability to hear in both ears and a willingness to undergo a moderately uncomfortable experience. The website was promoted via a social media campaign and 1,500 business cards to over 5,000 people in the London area via a meetup.com group called Interesting Talks London. This was to ensure that as broad a range of participants was selected as possible. No participants were paid for their contribution to the study, although a free hour of hypno-psychotherapy (worth 100) was offered (to be provided by PB) to anyone who took part. This hypno-psychotherapy was to be delivered in the month after the study had concluded. The participants were from a diverse range of backgrounds, professions and nationalities. They were a mix of musicians and non-musicians of varying skill level, and no participant had hearing difficulties in either ear. Thirty participants had anxiety scores that were within the normal range (M = 34.6, SD = 3.57) with twenty showing minimal to moderate anxiety (M = 50.5, SD = 4.63). One participant showed marked anxiety (61) with this participant showing the highest score. All participants who entered the experimental phase of the study completed it. There was one participant who dropped out when reading the information sheet (appendix C) who did not consent to the application of pain.
17
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Materials and Stimuli

The stimuli for this experiment consisted of nine different sound tracks which were all prepared simultaneously. A piece of software called Gnaural was used to create all of the binaural and monaural conditions (http://gnaural.sourceforge.net/). This is an open source software environment exclusively for the creation of binaural beats. In order to create the binaural beats, I chose a carrier frequency of 330 hertz (which is between A3 at 220 hertz, which I felt was too low and A4 440 hertz, which I felt was too high) and decided that in order to improve the likelihood of finding an effect that the binaural beats would not be static. Rather, they would perform 4 second gyrations over a 4 hertz frequency around the carrier frequency. Thus, a binaural beat of 330-334 hertz would contain both the carrier frequency (in the right ear) and an oscillating frequency in the left ear (332-336 hertz). In order to produce, edit and normalise these sounds to their desired length, volume level and duration, I used the audio editor Reaper (http://www.cockos.com/reaper/). This is an open source audio editor with capabilities which match professional audio editors such as Logic, Pro Tools or Cubase. Reaper allowed me to make sure that no one stimuli stood out against any of the others in order to ensure internal validity over all conditions. It also allowed me to create the monaural stimuli by simulating the effects of the binaural beats using sound processing and audio engineering tools. To create the mock binaural beats, I created two of the binaural tracks and fed them through both ears simultaneously in order to create the illusion that they were genuinely binaural whilst they were, in reality monaural. The only way for participants to identify whether the stimuli were binaural or not would be to listen to only one speaker or headphone which was forbidden during any part of the experimental procedure. The three control conditions were music, silence and white noise. These were created using the first three minutes of Mozart K448: Sonata for two pianos (movement one) Allegro con Spirito, recorded silence for a three minute duration and an online white noise generator 18
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
(http://simplynoise.com/). White noise was used as opposed to brown or pink noise as it covers all of the possible frequency ranges at equal power and is, therefore, the reciprocal of the silent condition (Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2013). The experimental equipment was partly provided by Goldsmiths and partly provided from my own funds. The experimental software (timing and randomisation of stimuli), tanks, electronics (air pressure button) and pump system were kindly designed and provided by Robert Davies, Systems Developer at Goldsmiths College. This consisted of a small piece of software (written in the programming language C) which recorded the duration of depression of the button at the bottom of the tank, randomised the stimuli for each participant (without repetition) and recorded the data in a .dat file for later analysis. Also provided were the two
Figure 3: Depiction of the ice tank complete with ice chamber, circulatory pump, surface and depth thermometers and air compression button.
tanks; one for the cold water (fig. 3) with a separate ice chamber with a pump at the
bottom feeding water to the surface of the tank and another which was for warm water (fig. 4) to aid the recovery of participants arms. In addition to this, I provided four digital aquatic thermometers (two for each tank surface and depth) in order to account for changes in temperature between the surface and the bottom of the tank,
Figure 2: Depiction of the warm water tank with surface and depth thermometers.
19
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 5: Depiction of the two cold tank thermometers.
Figure 4: Depiction of the two warm tank thermometers
(fig. 4 and fig. 5), headphones (- fig. 6, Sennheiser HD 202 Closed Back On-ear Stereo Headphones), Pure distilled water ice (average of two kilograms per participant sourced from the supermarket Iceland) a combined blood pressure and heart rate monitor (fig. 8) (Omron M2 Basic Blood Pressure Monitor) along with the ambient monitoring equipment (for analysing ambient temperature, humidity fig. 7) and sound levels monitored using a Samsung Galaxy S3).
Figure 6: Sennheiser HD 202 Closed Back On-ear Stereo Headphones used throughout the experiment
Figure 8: Blood pressure monitor used throughout experiment
Figure 7: The temperature and humidity monitor used throughout the experiment
20
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
In addition to this equipment, three questionnaires were used to screen participants prior to the testing phase of the experiment. This was done so that the results were not affected by the experiment itself with the questionnaires always being administered in a neutral environment outside of the experiment laboratory. These were the self-report questionnaire from the Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold MSI) (Goldsmiths, University of London, 2013), Body Vigilance Scale (BVS) (appendix B) and a Zung General Anxiety Rating Scale (appendix B). All three took the form of a self-administered questionnaire and were to be taken in any order that the participant wanted as they are all independent. The Gold MSI assessed a participants musical sophistication using thirty-six Likert-scale responses between 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) taking into account their listening habits along with any musical training they be currently undergoing or had previously achieved (Mllensiefen, 2012). The body vigilance scale is a measure designed to assess a participants conscious attendance to internal cues (such as heart palpitations etc.). The scale utilized eighteen questions rated between one and ten as to how much a participant worried about each of a number of bodily sensations providing a maximum score of one-hundred and eighty with a minimum score of eighteen (Olatunji, Deacon, Abramowitz, & Valentiner, 2007). The Zung Anxiety Rating Scale was previously explained in the introduction on page: 10. It provided a rating of general anxiety out of one hundred (Zung, 1971; Zung, 1974).
21
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Procedure
Participants filled in a form at www.bbstudy.co.uk requesting their desire to participate in the experiment. PB liaised with the participant for a suitable date and time of participation which was confirmed with the participant. Participants arrived at the Ben Pimlott Building at the date and time of their experimental session. Participants were asked to read an information sheet (appendix C) which detailed what the experiment was about, how many conditions there would be, and what they were expected to do during the study. They were asked to complete a disclosure form indicated that they consented and understood what was expected of them and how the study would operate henceforth. Participants were then asked to complete three questionnaires; an anxiety rating scale (appendix B), body vigilance scale (appendix B) and the GOLD-MSI prior to being shown to the experiment room. On completion of these questionnaires, the nature of the experiment was verbally explained to them in full, and they were asked if they had any further questions not explained thus far. Once in the experiment room, the participants blood pressure and heart rate were measured in their left arm which represented their resting blood pressure and heart rate. This was recorded on the experiment form. The participants were then asked to wear headphones and were performed a short test track (five to ten seconds of Mozart K448) in order to ensure they knew what to expect in terms of volume. The participants were then asked to place their left arm in the water (keeping the blood pressure equipment on their upper arm) and depress the button at the bottom of the tank. Once their arm entered the water, the experimenter pressed an OK button on the computer. This activated a computerised timer with the stimuli performed as soon as the button at the bottom of the tank was depressed. The participants kept their arm in the water for as long as possible without causing significant discomfort. As soon as a participant withdrew their hand either because the condition had ended or they had reached their pain tolerance limit, they dried their arm on a towel and had their blood 22
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
pressure and heart rate taken as soon as possible. This was repeated for all nine conditions, using alternating arms with the blood pressure and heart rate equipment always on the arm which had been submerged in the tank. In order to ensure internal validity, a number of measures were taken to ensure that sufficient recovery time and counterbalancing took place across participants on all conditions. All conditions were randomised in order to account for any fatigue effects across all participants. Both arms were also used throughout the experiment, in an alternating fashion in order to account for any effects of handedness and to reduce fatigue effects. This procedure also allowed the cooled arm from a previous trail to recover to room temperature before the commencement of a subsequent condition. The experiment took place in the same room and the same environment across all participants and for all conditions. Furthermore, both the ambient room temperature and ambient noise level were controlled for (via air conditioning and constant monitoring of extraneous noise levels using a decibel meter application on a Samsung Galaxy S3 smartphone).
23
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Results
Firstly, the data was normalised in order to compare each participant against their own performance using the formula where X is the actual data point, M is the mean of all
nine data points and S is the standard deviation of all nine data points. Then this entire data set was deemed to be normal using the Shapiro-Wilkes measure of normality (Table 2).
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Normalised Data for all reaction time conditions
Tests of Normality for all normalised Reaction Time Scores Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Stati stic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. * BB_4 .057 51 .200 .990 51 .950 .200* BB_8 .082 51 .979 51 .490 BB_14 .111 51 .167 .962 51 .098 MB_4 .118 51 .073 .962 51 .100 MB_8 .109 51 .178 .969 51 .201 MB_14 .151 51 .005 .959 51 .079 Music .108 51 .190 .962 51 .106 * Silence .094 51 .200 .974 51 .327 .200* White Noise .099 51 .975 51 .346
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction *. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
Reaction Times
Sound against Silence The raw score reaction time data is shown below (fig. 11) for all nine conditions. For each condition, 95% confidence intervals are also identified. This graph uses raw data. Descriptive statistics (Table 3) and normality plots are shown below (Table 4). All the data at this stage is significantly non-normal due it being the raw data and, therefore, not normalised to account for each participants individual performance as judged against themselves.
24
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 9: A Comparison of means across all raw reaction time conditions showing a main effect for the music condition.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics for raw score reaction time conditions.
Descriptive Statistics for Raw Score Reaction Times N Range Minimum Maximum BB4 51 183.47 5.38 188.85 BB8 51 186.33 5.53 191.87 BB14 51 199.41 8.38 207.79 MB4 51 183.83 7.37 191.19 MB8 51 189.50 6.33 195.83 MB14 51 187.30 6.30 193.60 Music 51 194.87 6.94 201.81 Silence 51 199.31 1.37 200.68 White Noise 51 183.73 2.94 186.67
Mean Std. Deviation 46.91 48.48 51.6 54.93 44.15 46.97 51.3 53.33 50.33 49.29 52.88 57.18 60.71 60.11 44.21 48.2 44.75 49.86
25
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Table 4: Normality tests for non-normalised reaction time data.
Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. BB4 .212 51 .000 .711 51 .000 BB8 .237 51 .000 .726 51 .000 BB14 .276 51 .000 .673 51 .000 MB4 .289 51 .000 .718 51 .000 MB8 .251 51 .000 .790 51 .000 MB14 .286 51 .000 .711 51 .000 Music .232 51 .000 .762 51 .000 Silence .276 51 .000 .755 51 .000 White Noise .263 51 .000 .704 51 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Now examining the normalised data, three ANOVA were used in order to determine the overall effect of condition. The first was a 9 way ANOVA which accounted for all experimental conditions and produced a main effect for the presence or absence of a sound in total reaction time duration. Mauchlys test indicated that the assumption of Sphericity had not been violated, X2 (35) = 33.108, p > .05, therefore, there was no need to correct the degrees of freedom. The results show that the reaction times of participants were significantly affected by the presence or absence of sound F (8,400) = 2.97, p = .003. This resulted in a moderate effect size of r = .19. Bonferroni post-hoc tests for pairwise comparisons revealed no significant main effects between any of the conditions on both the normalised and nonnormalised data sets (all > .05) (see appendix A). The graph below (fig. 12) depicts the difference in means between the different conditions using the normalised data set followed by descriptive statistics (Table 5). Normality plots were shown in table 2.
26
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 10: Depiction of means of normalised reaction time data showing a main effect for the Music condition.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for normalised reaction time scores.
Descriptive Statistics for normalised scores Std. Mean Deviation N BB_4 -.09080 .7457 51 BB_8 .01951 1.0407 51 BB_14 -.05778 .7576 51 MB_4 .01875 .8585 51 MB_8 .18206 .8076 51 MB_14 .11565 .8535 51 Music .43520 1.1654 51 Silence -.37063 1.0782 51 White Noise -.25186 .9224 51
27
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Binaural Beats against Monaural Beats
A 3 X 2 ANOVA comparing the binaural beats with the monaural beats produced the following descriptive statistics as identified in table 6.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for binaural beats against monaural beats.
1. Binaural against Monaural Measure: Binaural Beats against Monaural Beats (all values in seconds). 95% Confidence Interval Binaural/Monaural Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Binaural Beat 47.552 6.590 34.316 60.788 Monaural Beat 51.486 6.767 37.895 65.077
Table 7: Descriptive statistics for beat frequency.
2. Frequency Measure: Frequency timings (all values in seconds). Frequency 4 Hertz 8 Hertz 14 Hertz Mean Std. Error 49.083 6.538 50.961 6.848 48.512 7.089 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 35.952 62.214 37.206 64.717 34.272 62.751 .
The assumption of Sphericity had not been violated,
However the results of a 3 x 2 ANOVA demonstrate that there is no significant main effect for binaural beats against monaural beats (p < .05). Furthermore, there is no significant effect or interaction for beat frequency (p < .05).
Control Conditions (Music, Silence and White Noise)
A 3 X 1 ANOVA of the three control conditions (Music, Silence and White Noise) produced the following descriptive data (Table 8). A comparison of means, along with 95% confidence intervals can be seen in Figure 13.
28
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Table 8: Descriptive statistics for control conditions (Music, Silence and White Noise).
Estimate Marginal Means Measure: Reaction time durations for the control conditions (all values in seconds). 95% Confidence Interval Control Condition Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Music 60.708 8.418 43.801 77.615 Silence 44.213 6.749 30.657 57.769 White Noise 44.748 6.982 30.725 58.771
Figure 11: Comparison of reaction time means across control conditions showing a main effect of Music.
Mauchlys test indicated that the assumption of Sphericity had been violated, , therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of Sphericity ( ). The results show a main effect for
condition F (2, 100) = 7.36, p < .001), due to the larger mean of the music condition.
29
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Bonferroni post-hoc tests (Table 9) revealed no significant difference between the three conditions (p < .05).
Table 9: Pairwise comparison of control conditions showing a main effect of Music against Silence and White Noise.
Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 Mean Difference Std. (I-J) Error 16.495 7.553 15.960 7.890 -16.495 7.553 -.535 3.706 -15.960 7.890 .535 3.706 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Lower Bound Upper Bound -2.215 35.205 -3.586 35.506 -35.205 2.215 -9.715 8.645 -35.506 3.586 -8.645 9.715
(I) Control Music
(J) Control Silence White Noise Silence Music White Noise White Noise Music Silence
Based on estimated marginal means
Sig.a .101 .145 .101 1.000 .145 1.000
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Subjective Measures Here is an examination of the subjective measures which were provided by the participants as to how much they liked the sound and felt it helped them cope with the discomfort. Descriptive statistics are shown for the liking measures (Table 10) along with estimates of marginal means (Table 11) along with normality tests and a graph depicting the difference in means graphically (fig. 14). Furthermore, normality tests are provided for both the liking and the pain reduction scores for each condition (.
30
Binaural Beat Study Liking
Goldsmiths College
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for subjective measures of Liking
Descriptive Statistics for Liking Std. Mean Deviation BB4 5.00 1.980 BB8 5.04 2.126 BB14 4.67 2.188 MB4 5.25 2.087 MB8 4.75 1.937 MB14 4.43 2.013 Music 7.51 2.043 Silence 3.04 2.457
N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Table 11: Estimated means for subjective measures of Liking
Estimates Measure:MEASURE_1 Condition 1 (BB4) 2 (BB8) 3 (BB14) 4 (MB4) 5 (MB8) 6 (MB14) 7 (Music) 8 (Silence) 9 (White Noise) Mean Std. Error 5.000 .277 5.039 .298 4.667 .306 5.255 .292 4.745 .271 4.431 .282 7.510 .286 3.039 .344 3.471 .327 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 4.443 5.557 4.441 5.637 4.051 5.282 4.668 5.842 4.200 5.290 3.865 4.997 6.935 8.084 2.348 3.730 2.814 4.127
Table 12: Normality test for Liking data (non-normalised).
Tests of Normality (Non-Normalised Data) Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statisti Statisti c df Sig. c df Sig. BB4 .127 51 .038 .944 51 .019 BB8 .140 51 .014 .933 51 .007 BB14 .121 51 .060 .936 51 .008 31
Binaural Beat Study MB4 MB8 MB14 Music Silence White Noise
Music, Mind and Brain .132 .154 .134 .186 .232 .168 51 51 51 51 51 51 .027 .004 .023 .000 .000 .001 .939 .961 .948 .895 .810 .884 51 51 51 51 51 51
Goldsmiths College .011 .093 .025 .000 .000 .000
Table 13: Normality tests of Liking for normalised data.
Tests of Normality for Liking (Normalised Data) KolmogorovSmirnova Shapiro-Wilk Stati Statisti stic df Sig. c df Sig. * BB4 .062 51 .200 .988 51 .880 * BB8 .080 51 .200 .962 51 .104 * BB14 .076 51 .200 .973 51 .288 MB4 .064 51 .200* .995 51 .999 MB8 .109 51 .178 .969 51 .201 * MB8 .080 51 .200 .988 51 .895 MB14 .087 51 .200* .976 51 .376 Music .166 51 .001 .892 51 .000 Silence .212 51 .000 .832 51 .000 White Noise .062 51 .200* .975 51 .354
32
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 12: Comparison of mean liking data across all conditions showing a main effect for the Music condition/
The results indicated a main effect of liking against condition F (8, 400) = 22.14, p < .001. A pairwise comparison analysis indicated further significant main effects for condition which can be seen in Table 12. Non-significant comparisons can be seen in appendix A (page 66).
33
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Table 14: Pairwise comparisons for all Liking data according to condition (only significant main effects shown).
34
Binaural Beat Study Pain Reduction
Goldsmiths College
Participants responses as to how much they felt each experimental condition helped them to deal with the discomfort are shown below. Normality plots for both the normalised (table 16) and non-normalised (table 15) are shown, along with descriptive statistics (table 17) and estimates of means (table 18). Furthermore, a graph is provided to demonstrate the effects of each condition according to its mean (fig. 15) with a Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparison analysis to demonstrate significant main effects. A table of non-significant relationships can be seen in appendix A (page 66).
Table 15: Normality tests for measures of pain reduction (Non-Normalised).
Tests of Normality for measures of Pain Reduction (Non-Normalised) Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. BB4 .179 51 .000 .928 51 .004 BB8 .144 51 .010 .931 51 .006 BB14 .182 51 .000 .908 51 .001 MB4 .154 51 .004 .940 51 .013 MB8 .116 51 .084 .947 51 .024 MB14 .192 51 .000 .907 51 .001 Music .181 51 .000 .936 51 .008 Silence .353 51 .000 .665 51 .000 White Noise .239 51 .000 .830 51 .000
Table 16: Normality tests for pain reduction (normalised data).
Tests of Normality for Pain Reduction (Normalised Data) Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. * BB4 .063 51 .200 .985 51 .759 BB8 .109 51 .182 .968 51 .174 * BB14 .102 51 .200 .949 51 .028 * MB4 .101 51 .200 .957 51 .062 35
Binaural Beat Study MB8 MB14 Music Silence White Noise
Music, Mind and Brain .094 .167 .157 .241 .138 51 51 51 51 51 .200* .001 .003 .000 .016 .974 .894 .911 .789 .942 51 51 51 51 51
Goldsmiths College .325 .000 .001 .000 .015
Table 17: Descriptive statistics for subjective measures of pain reduction.
Descriptive Statistics for Pain Reduction Std. Mean Deviation N BB4 4.29 2.119 51 BB8 4.51 2.693 51 BB14 4.04 2.236 51 MB4 4.24 2.320 51 MB8 4.06 2.204 51 MB14 3.71 2.239 51 Music 5.80 2.706 51 Silence 2.29 2.157 51 White Noise 3.06 2.370 51
Table 18: Mean estimates for subjective measures of pain reduction.
Estimates Measure: Pain Reduction according to condition. 95% Confidence Interval Condition Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (BB4) 4.294 .297 3.698 4.890 2 (BB8) 4.510 .377 3.752 5.267 3 (BB14) 4.039 .313 3.410 4.668 4 (MB4) 4.235 .325 3.583 4.888 5 (MB8) 4.059 .309 3.439 4.679 6 (MB14) 3.706 .313 3.076 4.336 7 (Music) 5.804 .379 5.043 6.565 8 (Silence) 2.294 .302 1.688 2.901 9 (White Noise). 3.059 .332 2.392 3.725
36
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 13: Comparison of means for subjective measures of pain reduction across all conditions showing a main effect of Music with silence being significantly the worst condition against all other conditions.
37
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Table 19: Pairwise Comparisons for subjective measures of pain reduction demonstrating a host of significant differences, in particular for the control conditions of Music and White Noise.
38
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Effect of Participant Data Across all reaction time conditions, there was a main effect of gender with female participants outperforming male participants t = 3.52, p = .001. There was no significant correlation for the effect of age against reaction time (p > .05).
Table 20: Descriptive statistics for gender showing a significant difference of means according to mean reaction time.
Descriptive Statistics (in Seconds) Mean 42.12 57.20 Std. N Deviation 25 47.5 26 55.16 Std. Error Mean 3.166 3.702
Pair 1 Male RT Female RT
Figure 14: Mean reaction time against Gender
39
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Subjective Measure Correlations The subjective ratings of the participants for how much they liked the sound and felt it contributed towards pain reduction were all positively correlated and highly significant. These scores were pooled across all conditions and all participants reaction times. Furthermore, they were highly correlated with one another indicating that liking accounts for increased subjective comfort. Figure 17 plots the pain threshold rating (reaction time) for all conditions against the liking rating supplied by the participants producing a moderate and highly significant correlation coefficient (r = .42, p < .001). Therefore, the higher the participant liked a sound, the more likely they were to leave their arm in the water.
Figure 15: Correlation figure of r .42 for pain threshold against liking rating (pooled across all participants and all conditions) showing a significant effect for liking in improving reaction time duration.
40
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Pain reduction against pain threshold. Pain threshold (Reaction Times) against Pain Reduction Rating were also moderately positively correlated (r = .53, p < .001). Therefore, the higher a participant scored the pain reduction rating the longer their arm remained in the water.
Figure 16: Correlation figure of r = .53 for pain threshold against pain reduction rating (polled across all participants and conditions) indicating that participants who rated a condition as less painful showed increased reaction time scores.
Pain Reduction rating against Liking. Both the pain reduction rating and liking ratings are highly correlated (r = .70, p < .000) meaning that participants who liked a sound also believed it to be beneficial towards reducing their perception of the cold pain stimulus.
41
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 17: Correlation figure of r = .70 for pain reduction rating again liking rating (pooled across all participants and all conditions) indicating that the two measures of liking and pain reduction rating are highly correlated.
In order to determine if these correlations are significantly different from one another, Stigers test (also known as Williams test) was performed to identify the strength of the relationship between these correlations (Fig 20). All correlation relationships were highly significantly different from each other (p < .002).
42
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Hotelling Williams and Steigers Z test for correlation relationships. Measure: Correlations 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Mean Std. Lower Upper a Correlations t Z Difference Error Sig. Bound Bound 0.7 0.526 4.944 4.871 0.174 27.079 .000 0.1016 0.2464 0.7 0.423 8.353 7.93 0.277 27.249 .000 -0.2051 0.3489 0.526 0.423 3.339 3.302 0.103 31.609 .001 0.041 0.165
Figure 18: Significance test of correlations of subjective measures (Liking, Pain Reduction and Reaction Time) showing a strong significant difference between the correlations of subjective measures.
Questionnaire Scores
The Anxiety rating showed a significant (p = .025) correlation of r = -.314 against reaction time.
Table 21: Descriptive Statistics for Anxiety against mean reaction time (in seconds)
Descriptive Statistics for Anxiety against Mean RT Mean Std. Deviation N Anxiety Scale 41.35 9.169 51 Mean RT 49.6424 45.07728 51
43
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 19: A correlation figure of Zung general anxiety rating against mean reaction time demonstrating that the higher a participants initial anxiety score, the less their mean reaction times were across all conditions.
This indicated that participants with a lower anxiety rating at the beginning of the experiment were able to perform longer than those with higher initial anxiety ratings. There not have any extremely high anxiety scores (Lower bound: 28, Upper bound: 61, Range = 33) so to perform a median split of the data seemed inappropriate. Instead, an analysis over time was conducted in order to examine if participants anxiety reduced over the course of the experiment. The results (fig. 22) show that there is a significant difference between the first two blocks and the last two blocks according to their mean reaction time, t = 3.1, p = .003. Furthermore, there is a significant effect of Anxiety score as a between subjects factor F (1, 26) = 4.91, p > .05.
44
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 20: Comparison of first and last conditions of the experiment according to mean reaction time.
Paired Samples Statistics Pair 1 First two blocks Final two blocks Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 41.4252 51 42.49068 5.94988 55.0580 51 49.98071 6.99870
Furthermore, the scores were blocks were highly correlated with one another, r = .78, p < .000) as shown in figure 23.
45
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 21: Comparison of blocks examining correlation. They are highly correlated showing that participants show a maintained performance across all nine trials.
Gold MSI
The level of Musical Sophistication from the Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index showed a significant correlation with reaction time scores. Although this score did not correlate significantly with any of the individual conditions. Performing a median (63) split on the data produced twenty-five low scoring musicians and twenty six high scoring musicians. A paired samples t-test was conducted to compare the Gold-MSI to mean reaction time values. There was a significant difference in the reaction times of the high Gold-MSI group (M = 78.34, SD = 10.15) and the scores for the low Gold-MSI group (M = 49.48, SD =
46
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
9.08); t = (11.024), p < .001. Performing a 3 x 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA with GoldMSI as a between-subjects factor produced no significant effect across conditions. Furthermore, conducting a 3 x 1 x 2 ANOVA with the Gold-MSI as a between-subjects factor produced no significant effect either.
Table 22: Normality tests for Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI) scores
Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Low GMSI .146 25 .180 .923 25 .059 High GMSI .134 25 .928 25 .079
Table 23: Descriptive statistics for Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI) scores.
Descriptive Statistics for Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index Std. Mean N Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Low GMSI 49.4800 25 9.08350 1.81670 High GMSI 78.3400 25 10.15373 2.03075
47
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 22: Median spilt of Gold-MSI data against mean reaction time.
Body Vigilance Scale

Performing a median split on the data from the Body Vigilance Scale showed no significant effect for reaction times across any condition.
Table 24: Descriptive statistics for BVS scores after a median split.
Mean Reaction Time Median Spilt/BVS 0 1 Total
Mean 52.1046 46.8723 49.6424
N 27 24 51
Std. Deviation 40.72073 50.27644 45.07728
Furthermore, this score did not significantly correlate with any of the individual conditions.
48
Binaural Beat Study Biological Measures
Goldsmiths College
Heart Rate A participants heart rate measure showed no significant effect against their individual reaction time. However, the difference in the mean heart rate compared to the resting heart rate was significant t = 2.48, (p < .05). A 9 way ANOVA across all conditions showed a significant main effect of F (1, 50) = 6.56, p = .013. Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons showed no significant effect of condition across any condition.
Table 25: Descriptive statistics for measures of heart rate.
Descriptive Statistics Mean BB4 69.49 BB8 69.12 BB14 69.24 MB4 69.43 MB8 69.25 MB14 69.80 Music 70.39 Silence 71.41 White Noise 69.86
Table 26: Normality tests for heart rate
Std. Deviation 11.914 10.897 11.155 10.847 11.061 11.908 11.973 11.897 11.407
N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Tests of Normality KolmogorovSmirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. .136 51 .020 .965 51 .133 .145 51 .009 .944 51 .019 .139 51 .015 .968 51 .181 .108 51 .197 .978 51 .450 * .088 51 .200 .984 51 .738 * .062 51 .200 .991 51 .959 * .102 51 .200 .962 51 .101 * .088 51 .200 .980 51 .528 .200* .099 51 .982 51 .644 .132 51 .027 .968 51 .182 49
BB4 BB8 BB14 MB4 MB8 MB14 Music Silence White Noise RHR
Binaural Beat Study Tests of Normality
Goldsmiths College
BB4 BB8 BB14 MB4 MB8 MB14 Music Silence White Noise RHR
KolmogorovSmirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. .136 51 .020 .965 51 .133 .145 51 .009 .944 51 .019 .139 51 .015 .968 51 .181 .108 51 .197 .978 51 .450 * .088 51 .200 .984 51 .738 * .062 51 .200 .991 51 .959 * .102 51 .200 .962 51 .101 * .088 51 .200 .980 51 .528 .200* .099 51 .982 51 .644 .132 51 .027 .968 51 .182
Figure 23: A 9 Way ANOVA of mean heart rate against experimental condition.
50
Binaural Beat Study Blood Pressure Measures
Goldsmiths College
A participants blood pressure was not significantly raised during the experiment. No significant effect could be found from a nine way ANOVA according to condition for the blood pressure measurement.
Stimuli Detection
The responses from participants being asked to identify whether a given stimuli had been binaural or not were converted into a binary response of 1 (hit), 0 (false alarm). Z scores were then generated from this data for each participant and converted into D scores (Zhit Zfalse alarm). These D scores were then averaged across all participants to generate an average D score of -0.000002. Combining the median split Gold-MSI data with the detection rate, musicians showed a higher D score mean than the non-musicians. Non-musicians demonstrated a D score close to zero (0.03), whereas musicians were higher with 0.173. However, this was not a significant difference (p = .088).
51
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Discussion
The results paint a somewhat disappointing picture for the application of binaural beats in improving cold pain endurance. In refutation to my stated hypothesis, no effect could be found for the application of binaural beats against monaural beats with the binaural beats performing worse (although not significantly) than the monaural conditions (fig. 9). The most effective condition was music (fig. 11) which was also reflected by the liking (fig. 12) and pain reduction scores (fig, 13). Likewise, the least effective condition was silence with white noise performing a little better (although, only slightly). Furthermore, no effect of frequency could be found between either the binaural or monaural conditions (Table 7). The subjective ratings of liking and pain reduction were highly correlated with the reaction time scores indicating that a participants reaction time performance may be due to how much a participant likes a sound rather than any other quality or mechanism for influencing pain endurance (fig. 17). Thus, the results indicate that it may be subjective liking of a sound which influences a participants willingness to undergo a continued pain experience rather than any mechanism of entrainment resulting in subjective pain reduction. However, there seems to be an effect of musical sophistication on cold pain tolerance with participants who scored highly on the self-rating Gold-MSI questionnaire outperforming those who scored lower on the test of musical sophistication (fig. 22). Despite this large effect across all conditions, the effect did not show itself at individual conditions, possibly indicating that the musical participants were using a different coping strategy to the non-musicians in order to cope with the pain. This is supported anecdotally with the majority of musical participants describing their coping mechanism as focusing on the sound, whereas non-musical participants utilised strategies such as counting, deep breathing or staring at objects within the experiment room. The Body Vigilance Scale scores showed no significance across a median split. Anxiety scores showed a main effect of decreasing reaction time with higher initial 52
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
anxiety levels (fig. 19). This is to be expected as participants with higher anxiety may worry more about the pain and also be expecting more pain (therefore making the experience subjectively worse) leading to reduced reaction times. Pain is a subjective phenomenon which is highly affected by the anxiety level of each individual participant as they go through the painful experience (Sternbach, 1968) (Melzack, 1973) (Grachev, Fredickson, & Apkarian, 2001). Recent findings have found that this exacerbation of pain by anxiety is associated with activity in the hippocampus and, therefore, highly likely to involve memory (Ploghaus, et al., 2001). It is therefore true that those who are more anxious after having experienced a painful experience genuinely feel more pain than those who are less anxious, therefore, highly anxious participants are more likely to show reduced reaction times. Furthermore, an analysis of the effects of anxiety over time included comparing the first two conditions (1 and 2, whatever they may be they were all randomised) with the last two conditions (8 and 9) respectively (fig. 20). This demonstrated a main effect of anxiety and was a statistically significant difference across the two sides of the median spilt (table 24). This demonstrated that the anxiety measure was accurate across all participants and was an accurate predictor of success at the reaction time task. Furthermore, these two blocks were highly correlated indicating that if a participant started with a high reaction time (due to a low anxiety rating), they tended to keep this high score throughout the remainder of the experiment (fig. 21). This indicates that the cold pressor technique is a reliable method of detecting and working with a participants pain threshold and tolerance. Participant heart rate and blood pressure recordings showed mixed results with no main effect for the blood pressure readings but a main effect of heart rate (fig. 23). This may be due to heart rate being more sensitive than blood pressure perhaps not enough of the body was immersed in the water to affect blood pressure readings significantly.
53
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Overall, this study presents an intriguing portrayal of the ability for sound to affect pain endurance. Unfortunately, despite considerable effort, there were not enough participants to demonstrate a significant main effect for the binaural beat conditions against the monaural beats. This may be due to the effect size being extremely small, or it may mean that the phenomenon is largely based on individual differences and the subjective experience of listeners. A more likely hypothesis is that participants kept their hand in the water simply depending on how much they liked, enjoyed or were otherwise being distracted by the sound. Evidence for this hypothesis is demonstrated by the plot of liking against perceived pain reduction which showed a strong correlation at a very high significance (fig. 17). The most complex sound Mozart K448 is the condition with the highest mean value followed by the monaural then binaural beats. Binaural beat phenomena have been shown to be especially prone to expectation effects and the placebo effect. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to identify whether participants could tell the difference between the sound of the monaural beat and the binaural beat. The D score of -0.000002 reflects a general inability for participants to identify the sounds or to differentiate them during the experiment. The slight negative value demonstrates that there is a slight tendency to report a binaural beat over a monaural beat, otherwise known as a false positive. This is likely to be because the entire study is called a binaural beat study and participants are therefore primed to expect a larger prevalence of binaural beats rather than monaural ones. This effect exists even though all participants have been informed that there are exactly three conditions of each (despite this information, some participants answered binaural beat for almost every condition (5/6) whilst no one answered monaural beat for every condition). Furthermore, musicians are not significantly better at deciding which stimuli were binaural against which stimuli were monaural, which is not what I expected. However, I feel that with more statistical power, this would prove to be a significant result (p = .088). This may mean that musicians show a higher level of confidence
54
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
in their ability to determine whether a sound is binaural or not. Either that, or musicians can actually detect differences in the sound that non-musicians cannot detect due to their training, practice and neural plasticity in a similar way that experienced audio engineers can differentiate audio equipment. Furthermore, musicians did show an increased ability to withhold their arm in the cold water for longer than non-musicians. There has been anecdotal as well as empirical evidence to support the idea that music is a strong tool to use for motivation (Dwyer, 1995). It is likely that it is this which is fuelling the participants in their attempts to keep their hand in the water for as long as possible since the Mozart condition is the only sound which resembles real music. This may also explain why highly musical participants seem to be better able to use the musical condition to aid their performance in the cold water; they may use music for other tasks where motivation is required (such as studying or writing dissertations) which may mean they have become used to the application of music to help motivate them. It may also be the case that participants feel the need to listen to the music for a certain duration due its construction. On more than one occasion (after the experiment had concluded), musical participants verbally stated that during the music condition they had felt a strong desire to hold their arm in the water until the next perfect cadence or other musicological feature which implied closure and had become frustrated when there did not appear to be many. The heart rate and blood pressure recordings were attempting to find unconscious preferences for a sound condition. The high mean heart rate (fig. 23) for the silent condition reflects the unconscious anxiety experienced by participants as they possibly felt they needed to work harder to keep their arm in the water. Unfortunately, this effect did not show in the blood pressure readings. Throughout all of the trials, the 8 hertz condition has shown to be the most likely frequency to demonstrate an eventual effect with enough participants,
55
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
however, in the analysis, this relationship proved to be non-significant. No effect was found for a correlation analysis of pain tolerance against a participants age. In terms of improving this study, it may have been beneficial to screen participants based on their most painful experience (e.g. broken bones, childbirth) as it is widely believed that experiences such as these, or at least regular exposure to moderate to severe pain may increase pain tolerance (Woolf & Salter, 2000). This would ensure that participants with an unusually high pain tolerance were not given an unfair advantage over other participants who may have an average pain tolerance. Furthermore, it may have been beneficial to control for the effects of the menstrual cycle for female participants as it has been demonstrated in many studies that pain tolerance, perception and endurance along with body temperature can seriously fluctuate during this time (Riley, Robinson, Emily, & Price, 1999). However, in a recently published study, examining the effects of noxious stimuli such as the cold pressor technique, no effect of the menstrual cycle was found across pain stimuli (Thompson, Keogh, French, & Davis, 2008). However, I was presented with a lot of anecdotal evidence from my female participants during the experiment who were surprised I that had not been controlling for the effect of hormonal and psychological changes during menstruation. In order to ensure that there is no brainwave entrainment possibility for this effect, it would have been necessary to collect EEG data from these fifty-one participants. Therefore, I cannot out rule the hypothesis of brainwave entrainment entirely, and conclude that these effects are entirely down to how much the participants liked or enjoyed the sounds. I can only point out that this hypothesis is unlikely, given the results of this experiment. In conclusion, it appears that there is no overall main effect for binaural beats either against monaural beats, music, silence or white noise. However, a number of significant effects were found for Anxiety, Gold-MSI against reaction time in addition to a main effect of Music, for reducing the perceived pain or otherwise increasing pain endurance, especially
56
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
in musicians. It seems increasingly likely that participants were influenced by their liking for the sound, as opposed to any brainwave entrainment or other binaural beat mechanism contributing or influencing their performance.
57
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Bibliography
Budzynski, T. (2006). The Clinical Guide to Sound and Light. Dissertation. Stanford, USA. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainwaves/2006/theclinicalguidetosoundandlight.pdf Koyama, T., McHaffie, J. G., Laurienti, P. J., & Coghill, R. C. (2005). The subjective experience of pain: Where expectations become reality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(36), 1295012955. Perrott, D. R., & Nelson, M. A. (1969). Limits for the Detection of Binaural Beats. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46(6B), 1477-1481. Altenmuller, E. (1989). Cortical DC-potentials as electrophysiological correlates of hemispheric dominance of higher cognitive functions. Dove, H. W. (1839). Akustik, Theoretische Optik, Meteorologie. In H. W. Dove, & L. Moser, Repertorium der Physik: Enthaltend eine vollstndige Zusammenstellung. (Vol. 3, pp. 404 - 408). Lausanne, Switzerland.: Veit & Comp. Dwyer, J. J. (1995). Effect of perceived choice of music on exercise intrinsic motivation. Health Values: The Journal of Health Behavior, Education & Promotion, 19(2), 1826. Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2005). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. Von Hippel, The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. (pp. 109-127). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fitzpatrick, D. C., Roberts, J. M., Kuwada, S., Kim, D. O., & Filipovic, B. (2009). Processing Temporal Modulations in Binaural and Monaural Auditory Stimuli by Neurons in the Inferior Colliculus and Auditory Cortex. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 10(4), 579-593. doi:10.1007/s10162-009-0177-8 Foster, D. S. (1990, May). EEG and Subjective Correlates of Alpha-Frequency Binaural-Beat Stimulation Combined with Alpha Biofeedback. Dissertation. Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Lucid_07.pdf Gelfand, S. A. (2009). Essentials of Audiology. New York: Thieme. gethightnow.com. (2013, 09 05). Binaural Beats. Retrieved from gethighnow.com: http://gethighnow.com/binaural-beats/ Goldsmiths, University of London. (2013, 09 10). The Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI). Retrieved from http://www.gold.ac.uk: http://www.gold.ac.uk/music-mind-brain/gold-msi/ Grachev, I. D., Fredickson, B. E., & Apkarian, A. V. (2001). Dissociating anxiety from pain: mapping the neuronal marker N-acetyl aspartate to perception distinguishes closely interrelated characteristics of chronic pain. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 256260. Gu, X., Wright, B. A., & Green, D. M. (1995). Failure to hear binaural beats below threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 701-703. Hamilton, M. (1959). The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 32, 50-55. Herrmann, C. S. (2001). Human EEG responses to 1100 Hz flicker: resonance phenomena in visual cortex and their potential correlation to cognitive phenomena. Experimental Brain Research, 346-353. Huang, T. L., & Charyton, C. (2008). A Comprehensive review of the psychological effects of brainwave entrainment. Alternative Therapies, 14(5), 38 - 50. Humphris, G. M., Morrison, T., & Lindsay, S. J. (1995). The Modified Dental Anxiety Scale: Validation and United Kingdom Norms. Community Dental Health, 12, 143-150.
58
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Hyde, K. J., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A. C., & Schlaug, G. (2009). Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3019 3025. I-Doser.com. (2012). I-Doser: Binaural Brainwave Doses. 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.idoser.com/idosermediakit.pdf Ioannou, C. I., & Bhattacharya, J. (2011). Neural Oscillatory Responses to Binaural Beats: Differences between Musicians and Non-musicians. London: Goldsmiths, University of London. Kaernbach, C., Schroger, E., & Gunter, T. C. (1998). Human event-related brain potentials to auditory periodic noise stimuli. Neurosciene Letters, 17-20. Kasprzak, C. (2011). Influence of Binaural Beats on EEG Signal. Acoustic and Biomedical Engineering, 119, 986-990. Kliempt, P., Ruta, D., Ogston, S., Landeck, A., & Martay, K. (1999). Hemispheric synchronization during anaesthesia: A double blind randomized trial using audiotapes for intra-operative nociception control. Anaesthesia, 54(8), 769-773. Kuwada, S., Yin, C., & Wickesberg, R. E. (1979). Response of cat inferior colliculus neurons to binaural beat stimuli: Possible mechanisms for sound localization. Science, 206(4418), 586-588. Lane, J. D., Kasian, S. J., Owens, J. E., & Marsh, G. R. (1998). Binaural Auditory Beats Affect Vigilance Performance and Mood. Physiology & Behavior, 63(2), 249-252. Lane, J. D., Kasian, S. J., Owens, J. E., & Marsh, G. R. (1998). Binaural auditory beats affect vigilance performance and mood. Physiology and Behavior, 63(2), 249-252. Le Scouarnec, R. P., Poirier, R. M., Owens, J. E., Gauthier, J., Taylor, A. G., & Foresman, P. A. (2001). Use of binaural beat tapes for treatment of anxiety: A pilot study of tape preference and outcomes. Alternative Therapy Health Medicine, 7(1), 58-63. Licklider, C. R., Webster, J. C., & Hedlun, J. M. (1950). On the Frequency Limits of Binaural Beats. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(4), 468-473. Loui, P., Li, C. H., Hohmann, A., & Schlaug, G. (2011). Enhanced Cortical Connectivity in Absolute Pitch Musicians: A Model for Local Hyperconnectivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(4), 1015-1026. Meldrum, M. (2011, 11 08). A History of Pain Management. Retrieved 01 09, 2013, from Journal of the American Medical Association: http://opioids.com/painmanagement/history.html Melzack, R. (1973). The puzzle of Pain. New York: Basic Books. Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1996). The challenge of pain (2nd ed.). London: Penguin. Mitchell, L. A. (2013). Cold Pressor Test. Retrieved from Springer Reference: http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/345318.html Mitchell, L. A., MacDonald, R. A., & Brodie, E. E. (2004). Temperature and the cold pressor test. Pain, 5(4), 233-237. Mllensiefen, D. G. (2012). The Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI): Technical Report and Documentation v1.0. London: Goldsmiths, University of London. Olatunji, B. O., Deacon, B. J., Abramowitz, J. S., & Valentiner, D. P. (2007). Body Vigilance in Nonclinical and Anxiety Disorder Samples: Structure, Correlates, and Prediction of Health Concerns. Behaviour Therapy, 38, 392 - 401. Oster, G. (1973). Auditory Beats in the Brain. Scientific American, 229(4), 94 - 102. Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2013, 01 09). anxiety. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anxiety?q=Anxiety
59
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2013, 09 10). White Noise. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/whitenoise Padmanabhan, R., Hildreth, A. J., & Laws, D. (2005). A prospective, randomised, controlled study examining binaural beat audio and pre-operative anxiety in patients undergoing general anaesthesia for day case surgery. Anaesthesia, 60(9), 874-877. Parnia, S. (2013). The Lazarus Effect. London: HarperCollins. Paulson, P. E., Minoshima, S., Morrow, T. J., & Casey, K. L. (1998). Gender differences in pain perception and patterns of cerebral activation during noxious heat stimulation in humans. Pain, 76((1-2)), 223. Ploghaus, A., Narain, C., Beckmann, C. F., Clare, S., Bantick, S., Wise, R., . . . Tracey, I. (2001). Exacerbation of Pain by Anxiety Is Associated with Activity in a Hippocampal Network. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(24), 9898-9903. Riley, J. L., Robinson, M. E., Emily, A. W., & Price, D. (1999). A meta-analytic review of pain perception across the menstrual cycle. Pain, 81(3), 225-235. Seligman, M., Walker, E. F., & Rosenhan, D. L. (2001). Abnormal psychology. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Slatky, H. (1992). Algorithms for direction specific Processing of Sound Signals - the Realization of a binaural Cocktail-Party-Processor-System. 45. Ruhr-University Bochum. Sternbach, R. A. (1968). Pain: a psychophysiological analysis. New York: Academic. Stevens, L., Hagaa, Z., Queena, B., Bradya, B., Adamsa, D., Gilberta, J., . . . McManus, P. (2003). Binaural Beat Induced Theta EEG Activity and Hypnotic Susceptibility: Contradictory Results and Technical Considerations. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 45(4), 295-309. The Monroe Institute. (2013). Overview of Research at The Monroe Institute. Retrieved from http://www.monroeinstitute.org/: http://www.monroeinstitute.org/research/overviewof-research-at-the-monroe-institute The Monroe Institute. (2013). Overview of Research at The Monroe Institute. Retrieved from The Monroe Institute: http://www.monroeinstitute.org/research/overview-of-researchat-the-monroe-institute Thompson, T., Keogh, E., French, C. C., & Davis, R. (2008). Anxiety sensitivity and pain: generalisability across noxious stimuli. Pain, 197-96. Turow, G., & Lane, J. D. (2011). Binaural Beat Stimulation. In J. Berger, & G. Turow, Music, Science and the Rhythmic Brain (p. 122). New York: Routledge. Turow, G., & Lane, J. D. (2011). Binaural Beat Stimulation: Altering Vigilance and Mood States. In J. Berger, & G. Turow, Music, Science, and the Rhythmic Brain (pp. 122136). New York: Routledge. Wahbeh, H., Calabrese, C., Zwickey, H., & Zajde, D. (2007). Binaural Beat Technology in Humans: A Pilot Study to Assess Neuropsychologic, Physiologic, And Electroencephalographic Effects. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 13(2), 199-206. Wahbeh, H., Calabrese, C., Zwickey, H., & Zajdel, D. (2007). Binaural beat technology in humans: A pilot study to assess neuropsychologic, physiologic, and electroencephalographic effects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 13(2), 199-206. Wan, C. Y., & Schlaug, G. (2010). Music Making as a Tool for Promoting Brain Plasticity across the Life Span. The Neuroscientist, 566-577. Will, U., & Berg, E. (2007). Brain wave synchronization and entrainment to periodic acoustic stimuli. Neuroscience Letters, 55-60. 60
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Woolf, C. J., & Salter, M. W. (2000). Neuronal Plasticity: Increasing the Gain in Pain. Science, 288, 1765-1768. doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1765 Zeng, F.-G., Kong, Y.-Y., Michaelwski, H. J., & Starr, A. (2004). Perceptual Consequences of Disrupted Auditory Nerve Activity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 110(3), 575-576. doi:10.1152/jn.00985.2004 Zung, W. W. (1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics, 12(6), 371379. Zung, W. W. (1974). The measurement of affects: depression and anxiety. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 7, 170-88.
61
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Appendix A: Non-significant Data

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Reaction time by condition (Normalised Data). Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a -.110 .184 1.000 -.033 .147 1.000 -.110 .165 1.000 -.273 .164 1.000 -.206 .170 1.000 -.526 .207 .510 .280 .196 1.000 .161 .171 1.000 .110 .184 1.000 .077 .188 1.000 .001 .209 1.000 -.163 .192 1.000 -.096 .210 1.000 -.416 .233 1.000 .390 .236 1.000 .271 .196 1.000 .033 .147 1.000 -.077 .188 1.000 -.077 .159 1.000 -.240 .150 1.000 -.173 .159 1.000 -.493 .211 .836 .313 .204 1.000 .194 .191 1.000 .110 .165 1.000 -.001 .209 1.000 .077 .159 1.000 -.163 .177 1.000 -.097 .173 1.000 -.416 .212 1.000 .389 .214 1.000 .271 .181 1.000 .273 .164 1.000 .163 .192 1.000 62 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Lower Upper Bound Bound -.733 .513 -.529 .463 -.670 .451 -.827 .282 -.783 .370 -1.227 .175 -.384 .944 -.419 .741 -.513 .733 -.558 .713 -.707 .709 -.812 .487 -.807 .615 -1.206 .375 -.408 1.188 -.393 .936 -.463 .529 -.713 .558 -.614 .461 -.749 .269 -.711 .364 -1.206 .220 -.378 1.004 -.454 .842 -.451 .670 -.709 .707 -.461 .614 -.763 .436 -.683 .489 -1.133 .300 -.336 1.115 -.343 .884 -.282 .827 -.487 .812
(I) Condition 1
(J) Condition 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 1 2
Binaural Beat Study 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Music, Mind and Brain .240 .163 .066 -.253 .553 .434 .206 .096 .173 .097 -.066 -.320 .486 .368 .526 .416 .493 .416 .253 .320 .806 .687 -.280 -.390 -.313 -.389 -.553 -.486 -.806 -.119 -.161 -.271 -.194 -.271 -.434 -.368 -.687 .119 .150 .177 .182 .222 .184 .180 .170 .210 .159 .173 .182 .204 .205 .186 .207 .233 .211 .212 .222 .204 .240 .236 .196 .236 .204 .214 .184 .205 .240 .203 .171 .196 .191 .181 .180 .186 .236 .203 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .148 .705 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .775 1.000 .510 1.000 .836 1.000 1.000 1.000 .054 .190 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .148 .775 .054 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .705 1.000 .190 1.000
Goldsmiths College -.269 -.436 -.548 -1.006 -.069 -.175 -.370 -.615 -.364 -.489 -.681 -1.011 -.208 -.263 -.175 -.375 -.220 -.300 -.500 -.372 -.006 -.111 -.944 -1.188 -1.004 -1.115 -1.175 -1.180 -1.618 -.806 -.741 -.936 -.842 -.884 -1.043 -.998 -1.485 -.569 .749 .763 .681 .500 1.175 1.043 .783 .807 .711 .683 .548 .372 1.180 .998 1.227 1.206 1.206 1.133 1.006 1.011 1.618 1.485 .384 .408 .378 .336 .069 .208 .006 .569 .419 .393 .454 .343 .175 .263 .111 .806
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Figure 24: Pairwise comparisons for reaction time data
63
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Reaction Time by Condition (non-normalised). (In seconds). 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Mean (I) (J) Difference Lower Upper a Condition Condition (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound 1 2 -4.683 5.006 1.000 -21.633 12.267 3 2.764 2.567 1.000 -5.927 11.455 4 -4.342 5.722 1.000 -23.716 15.032 5 -3.415 4.925 1.000 -20.090 13.259 6 -5.964 4.235 1.000 -20.302 8.375 7 -13.796 6.495 1.000 -35.788 8.196 8 2.699 5.090 1.000 -14.535 19.933 9 2.164 4.386 1.000 -12.687 17.014 2 1 4.683 5.006 1.000 -12.267 21.633 3 7.448 4.798 1.000 -8.797 23.692 4 .342 6.367 1.000 -21.218 21.901 5 1.268 5.097 1.000 -15.989 18.524 6 -1.280 5.379 1.000 -19.492 16.931 7 -9.113 7.175 1.000 -33.408 15.182 8 7.382 5.604 1.000 -11.592 26.356 9 6.847 5.045 1.000 -10.233 23.927 3 1 -2.764 2.567 1.000 -11.455 5.927 2 -7.448 4.798 1.000 -23.692 8.797 4 -7.106 5.936 1.000 -27.204 12.991 5 -6.180 4.540 1.000 -21.553 9.193 6 -8.728 3.705 .808 -21.271 3.815 7 -16.561 6.425 .466 -38.313 5.192 8 -.066 5.025 1.000 -17.079 16.948 9 -.601 4.386 1.000 -15.452 14.251 4 1 4.342 5.722 1.000 -15.032 23.716 2 -.342 6.367 1.000 -21.901 21.218 3 7.106 5.936 1.000 -12.991 27.204 5 .926 5.002 1.000 -16.011 17.863 6 -1.622 6.378 1.000 -23.217 19.973 7 -9.454 7.753 1.000 -35.705 16.797 8 7.041 5.660 1.000 -12.123 26.204 9 6.506 5.860 1.000 -13.336 26.348 5 1 3.415 4.925 1.000 -13.259 20.090 2 -1.268 5.097 1.000 -18.524 15.989 3 6.180 4.540 1.000 -9.193 21.553 64
Binaural Beat Study 4 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Music, Mind and Brain -.926 -2.548 -10.381 6.114 5.579 5.964 1.280 8.728 1.622 2.548 -7.832 8.663 8.128 13.796 9.113 16.561 9.454 10.381 7.832 16.495 15.960 -2.699 -7.382 .066 -7.041 -6.114 -8.663 -16.495 -.535 -2.164 -6.847 .601 -6.506 -5.579 -8.128 -15.960 .535 5.002 4.977 7.005 4.534 3.996 4.235 5.379 3.705 6.378 4.977 6.653 5.078 4.643 6.495 7.175 6.425 7.753 7.005 6.653 7.553 7.890 5.090 5.604 5.025 5.660 4.534 5.078 7.553 3.706 4.386 5.045 4.386 5.860 3.996 4.643 7.890 3.706 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .808 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .466 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Goldsmiths College -17.863 -19.399 -34.100 -9.239 -7.951 -8.375 -16.931 -3.815 -19.973 -14.303 -30.359 -8.532 -7.592 -8.196 -15.182 -5.192 -16.797 -13.339 -14.694 -9.078 -10.755 -19.933 -26.356 -16.948 -26.204 -21.467 -25.857 -42.068 -13.082 -17.014 -23.927 -14.251 -26.348 -19.110 -23.847 -42.675 -12.012 16.011 14.303 13.339 21.467 19.110 20.302 19.492 21.271 23.217 19.399 14.694 25.857 23.847 35.788 33.408 38.313 35.705 34.100 30.359 42.068 42.675 14.535 11.592 17.079 12.123 9.239 8.532 9.078 12.012 12.687 10.233 15.452 13.336 7.951 7.592 10.755 13.082
Based on estimated marginal means

Figure 25: Pairwise comparison data by condition (non-normalised data)
65
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Figure 26: Complete pairwise comparisons for liking and pain reduction.
66
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Appendix B: Anxiety Questionnaires (BVS and ZARS)
67
Binaural Beat Study
Music, Mind and Brain Body Vigilance Scale
Goldsmiths College
Please complete the following questions according to the following scale: 1 None 2 3 Slight 4 5 Moderate 6 7 Substantial 8 9 10 Extreme
I pay close attention to internal body sensations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I am very sensitive to changes in my internal bodily sensations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How much time do you spend "scanning" your body for sensations? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How much attention do you pay to each of the following sensations?
Heart palpitations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chest pain and discomfort: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Numbness: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tingling: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shortness of breath: 68
Binaural Beat Study 1 Faintness: 1 Vision changes: 1 2 3 2 3 2 3
Music, Mind and Brain 4 5 6 7 8 9
Goldsmiths College 10
10
10
Feelings of unreality: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Feelings of detachment from self: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dizziness: 1 Hot flushes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sweating or clammy hands: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stomach upset: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nausea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Choking or throat closing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
69
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Appendix C: Participant information documentation. INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS

YOU WILL BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEET
Investigating the Enhancement of Pain Tolerance in Musicians and Non-Musicians utilizing Binaural Beats.
We would like to invite you to take part in this original postgraduate research project. You should only participate if you want to; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. Before you decide whether you want to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what your participation will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. The research aims to investigate whether binaural beats (BB) can improve pain tolerance. By taking part in this study, not only will you be able to improve the understanding of binaural beats, but you could learn how to increase your own pain tolerance! There is an optional compensation of one hour of hypno-psychotherapy for all participants. The project is being run by Peter Bryant as a component of his research masters in Music, Mind and Brain and is being supervised by Professor Joydeep Bhattacharya. We are recruiting individuals aged 18 and over. To take part, the following should not apply to you: an existing pain condition, a history of heart disease, epilepsy, high blood pressure, recent injury, circulatory disorders, and current pregnancy. If you agree to take part, we will require you to visit the Ben Pimlot Building in New Cross Gate (SE14 6NW) once on an arranged date for no more than one hour and a half. You will be randomly allocated to proceed with a series of nine experimental conditions and asked to complet e a cold pressor task, which involves placing part of one arm in cold water for each of these nine conditions. Your blood pressure and heart rate will be recorded during the exercises via non-invasive clinical equipment. This will involve you wearing a heart rate monitor on your chest and a blood pressure sleeve on your upper arm. It is advised that you wear loose clothing (preferably with short sleeves) for ease and comfort when using this equipment. Both arms will be used in this experiment in alternate trials. You will be in the presence of a fully qualified first aider at all times in the unlikely event of any complications arising from the experimental procedure. The cold pressor task can be uncomfortable, but it is a reliably and demonstrably safe method for inducing pain. The equipment used is a container of cold water, and the task involves placing your arm in the water, saying on a scale of one to ten how much pain you are experiencing at certain times, and then removing your arm after 3 minutes or when it becomes too uncomfortable. You can end the task at any time. All measures possible will be taken to minimise any possible risk, and all personally identifiable data will be completely anonymised. The data shall be recorded by the depression of an electronic pad placed at the bottom of the tack. If you give us your permission, we will record your session using a video camera (angled on the water tank only your arm will be filmed). These recordings will be deleted once they have been written up. Should you take part, you will be compensated by a free hour of hypnopsychotherapy if you wish, we will direct you to a final copy of the report and you will be invited to attend a public talk of the results in August/September 2013. Binaural beats are an auditory phenomena which some claim allow you to alter your mood, anxiety level or performance on cognitive tasks just by listening to two, slightly differently pitched tones. Two tones will be presented, one to each ear for the duration of three minutes. These tones will differ slightly in pitch so that they create a subjective beating effect. This is what is known as a binau ral beat. They are entirely safe and the most you are likely to feel is a little more relaxed when the binaural beats are performed. In order to accommodate for expectation effects this study also uses an identical set of monophonic beats which are perceptually identical to the binaural ones. You will not know which stimuli are the real binaural beat stimuli are as they have been disguised. You will be asked to guess which conditions you thought were the binaural beat stimuli at the conclusion of the experiment. Should you wish to withdraw from participation in this study or should you wish to withdraw your data, you may do so at any time. You are also entitled to request a break (or breaks) from the experimental procedure at any point in the experiment. All personally identifiable data will be destroyed after your visit and the data has been written up. While held, all data will be kept on encrypted devices and will only be accessible by the primary researcher. The data collected from the study will be anonymised, and will only be figures relating to pain tolerance and various questionnaire scores. With your permission we will archive this data for use by future researchers. We plan to publish our findings in a peer reviewed journal, and a final report from the study will be distributed via the internet to participants. The primary researcher in this project will be Peter Bryant. Contact: ps202pb@gold.ac.uk, or write to Peter Bryant, Psychology Department, Goldsmiths College, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW It is up to you to decide whether to take part or not. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw from the study at any time and without giving a reason. If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact the project supervisor using the following contact details Joydeep Bhattacharya. Contact: j.bhattacharya@gold.ac.uk, or write to Joydeep Bhattacharya, Room 1-14 Ben Pimlott Building, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, London, United Kingdom Just in case you experience any difficulties after the experiment has taken place, the nearest doctors surgery to Goldsmiths College can be found at 40 Goodwood Road, New Cross, London, SE14 6BL. Telephone: 020 3049 2249.
70
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH STUDIES
Please complete this form after you have read the information sheet and/or listened to an explanation about the research and asked any questions you might have had.
Title of Study: Investigating the Enhancement of Pain Tolerance in Musicians and NonMusicians utilizing Binaural Beats. Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organising the research must explain the project to you before you agree to take part. If you have any questions arising from the information sheet or any verbal explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you decide whether to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep and refer to at any time. I understand that if I decide at any time during the research that I no longer Please tick or initial wish to participate in this project, I can notify the researchers involved and withdraw from it immediately without giving any reason. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able to withdraw my data up to the point of publication. I understand that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and it will not be possible to identify me in any publications. Furthermore, I permit my anonymised data to be published once this study is completed. I understand that I must not take part if the following apply to me: an existing pain condition, a history of heart disease, epilepsy, high blood pressure, recent injury, circulatory disorders, or current pregnancy. Yes
Yes
Participants Statement: I _____________________________________________________________________ hereby agree that the research project named above has been explained to me to my satisfaction and I agree to take part in the study. I have read both the notes written above and the information sheet about the project, and understand what the research study involves.
Signed Investigators Statement:
Date
/13. (DD/MM/YY).
I, Peter Bryant, confirm that I have carefully explained the nature, demands and any foreseeable risks (where applicable) of the proposed research to the participant and that they have understood them to the best of my knowledge. Signed Date: / /13. (DD/MM/YY).
71
Binaural Beat Study

Participant Debriefing Form
Goldsmiths College
Thank you very much for taking part in this experiment into the effects of binaural beats on the perception of pain. You have just participated in an experiment which presented nine experimental conditions three of which were binaural beats, three were monotone beats which were included for experimental blinding purposes. The other three conditions were controls and were silence, music and white noise. If you have any further questions please feel free to email the principal researcher at ps202pb@gold.ac.uk or telephone 07909 449 445. I agree that I have no further questions at the present time, but should I in the future, I know who to contact. I also confirm that I am happy with the way the experiment was executed and feel comfortable after participating. I am happy for my experimental information provided today to be published anonymously at the conclusion of this study. If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact the project supervisor using the following contact details Joydeep Bhattacharya. Contact: j.bhattacharya@gold.ac.uk, or write to Joydeep Bhattacharya, Room 1-14 Ben Pimlott Building, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, London, United Kingdom. Once again, I would like to thank you for taking part in this study.
Signed _________________________________ (Participant).
Date: /
/13.
(DD/MM/YY).
Print: __________________________________
Signed_________________________________ (Researcher).
Date: /
/13.
(DD/MM/YY).
Print: Peter Bryant.
72
Binaural Beat Study
Goldsmiths College
Appendix D: Calculations
The following formula was used to calculate all effect sizes:
73

Binaural Beats and Pain Endurance: A Double Blind, Randomised Study Into The Effectiveness of An Auditory Phenomenon On Cold Pain Endurance.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Binaural Beats and Pain Endurance: A Double Blind, Randomised Study Into The Effectiveness of An Auditory Phenomenon On Cold Pain Endurance.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation into the effects of Binaural Beat phenomena on Cold Pain Endurance

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study The Study of Pain

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Musicians and Non-Musicians

Binaural Beat Study The Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Figure 1: Depiction of the experimental design

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Materials and Stimuli

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Figure 5: Depiction of the two cold tank thermometers.

Figure 4: Depiction of the two warm tank thermometers

Figure 8: Blood pressure monitor used throughout experiment

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for raw score reaction time conditions.

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Table 4: Normality tests for non-normalised reaction time data.

Binaural Beat Study

Music, Mind and Brain

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for normalised reaction time scores.

Binaural Beat Study