Week12 : second draft (Sources)

Sources to reinforce the refutation part.
I find the resources that can be helpful to get better.

1.
 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-06/#feature


2.
 So, does the Mozart effect exist? The generality of the original positive findings has been criticized on the grounds that any Mozart effect is due to `enjoyment arousal' occasioned by this particular music and would not take place in the absence of its appreciation. This interpretation is countered by animal experiments in which separate groups of rats were exposed, in utero followed by a postpartum period of 60 days, to Mozart's piano sonata K448, to minimalist music by the composer Philip Glass, to white noise or to silence and then tested for their ability to negotiate a maze. The Mozart group completed the maze test significantly more quickly and with fewer errors (P <0.01) than the other three groups; thus, enjoyment and musical appreciation is unlikely to have been the basis of the improvement.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281386/


3.
 
Other researchers have been wary of the findings presented by Rauscher and colleagues. Instead, Mozart effect critics have claimed the spatial intelligence increase to be nothing more than a shift in participants' arousal, which then produces better spatial test scores (Steele, 2000; Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001). In essence, their argument is that listening to Mozart's music causes either an increase or decrease in someone's arousal and mood to a level that is more optimal for testing. Personal preference for the music heard in Mozart effect testing may also be a possible influence on increasing spatial test scores (Nantais & Schellenberg, 1999).
http://www.intelltheory.com/mozarteffect2.shtml