Sugeons and Music

SF Examiner article:

Upon my first reading of the newspaper article, the titled piqued my
curiosity. Not only was I interested in the possibility of such
phenomenon, I was also intrigued as to how the research was
performed. However, with the little information the reader is provided
with I was soon disappointed with the research methods. The major
problem I found was correlating the research data with real-life
surgeries. Even though the research was conducted more out of
curiosity than scientific endeavour, the newspaper article could have
shed some of the sensationalism and reported on the study findings.

The JAMA study concluded that while music does reduce autonomic
activity (heart rate, blood pressure) during their test conditions,
speed and accuracy were not significantly different when comparing no
music and the Pachelbel conditions. However, the article made no
mention of that finding.

The article also makes other claims which were not found or specified
in the article, such as "Surgeons are likely to do a better job at the
operating table with a little background music. . . and your surgeon
prefers Beethoven." Yet, there was no conclusive correlation between
background music and better SURGICAL performance. The article implied
a direct connection between physiological measures and surgical
performance, a conclusion which the JAMA article did not
state. Lastly, the headline, "Surgeons may operate better with music"
seems to imply that ALL surgeons will perform better with background
music; the JAMA article claimed the contrary concluding that "we
cannot speculate whether music would have beneficial effects for
surgeons who customarily choose not to listen to it during surgery or
for surgeons who might listen to music but are not devoted music
enthusiasts."

In science, interpretation is everything. All scientific findings are
subject to review, by the scientific community and general
public. Often, the findings require translation into layperson's
terms, a task that is often inconsistent and misleading. This can be
especially true with the newsmedia because their primary purpose is to
lure readers and not to report the truth. Simply put, sensationalism
and attention-seeking headlines are more important, almost regardless
if scientific accuracy and relevance is compromised. However, on the
other hand, there are no hard and fast rules for reporting--the writer
was doing her job and isn't probably is not deliberately misinforming
the readers. No crime has been committed.  She is simply adding her
own interpretation which readers can choose to believe or reject.

The JAMA article:

The article begins with some background on the prevalance of music in
operating rooms, and it states that music is "thought to be fairly common
during surgery."  Yet, though there has been extensive data collected
regarding the effects of music on patients during and after surgery, the
effects of music upon surgeons is largely unknown.  In their study, the
researchers tried to shed some light on the issue.

While these researchers made an honest attempt to make some statement
about music and surgical performance, they should have attempted to
correlate or formulate a way to link their data to real-life
performance. They are under the assumption that the more relaxed we
are, the better we perform.  Interestingly, numerous psychological
studies have concluded that we perform best under mildly stressful
conditions. If the JAMA article found that music listening lowered
(possibly highly stresful) surgical conditions to "mildly stressful,"
then perhaps the findings would have been more convincing.

The Study:

The study results would have seemed more credible had the researchers
performed their measurements directly during surgery. Granted, this is
not feasible, but doing so would give the data a much more concrete
foundation.  The findings would also carry more weight if they
determined some way to correlate physiological data with actual
performance. Quite frankly, I am skeptical as to whether this is in
fact possible, as individuals perform differently under the same
conditions.

In general, the newspaper article was somewhat enjoyable to read, as
it was written in a lighter vein, not intended as a groundbreaking
medical finding. It certainly reinforces a "rumor" that many surgeons
do in fact prefer listening to music while performing surgery. How
many surgeons really blast Bach, Brahms or Beethoven? Who knows, but
finding out may shed more light on the subject. While music may help
calm the nerves, it's difficult to say if the calming effect improves
surgical performance, speed and accuracy in the operating room.

Suggested Questions:

1.  What are some possible confounding variables in the study?

2.  Which treatment condition produced the fewest errors and best
speed as well as lowest average physiological responses?