Book Review: Manuela Filippa, Pierre Kuhn, &amp; Björn Westrup. <i>Early vocal contact and preterm infant brain development: Bridging the gaps between research and practice</i>

Papatzikis, Efthymios; Tsakmakidou, Natalia

doi:10.1177/0305735619872704

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Torppa and Huotilainen 79 explained in detail the reasons that music has a meaningful impact on speech and language skills enhancement for children with hearing impairments, based on previously published correlational and cross‐sectional studies in this domain. Following the same reporting line, Papatzikis and Tsakmakidou 97 provided a detailed structural evaluation of their review, effectively enhancing the description of the impact of long‐term effects of music exposure and early vocal contact on preterm infants’ long‐term neurodevelopment that Filippa et al 143 . debate in their book.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For our study, 89 articles 47–132 were extracted from the Google Scholar and PubMed databases using the keywords “neuroplasticity,” “brain changes,” “music,” and “sound.” Based on these keywords, we included all articles that were published in 2019, written in English, and peer‐reviewed. The sample included both quantitative and qualitative studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality standards and recommendations for research in music and neuroplasticity

Papatzikis

Agapaki

Selvan

et al. 2022

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on how music influences brain plasticity has gained momentum in recent years. Considering, however, the nonuniform methodological standards implemented, the findings end up being nonreplicable and less generalizable. To address the need for a standardized baseline of research quality, we gathered all the studies in the music and neuroplasticity field in 2019 and appraised their methodological rigor systematically and critically. The aim was to provide a preliminary and, at the minimum, acceptable quality threshold-and, ipso facto, suggested recommendations-whereupon further discussion and development may take place. Quality appraisal was performed on 89 articles by three independent raters, following a standardized scoring system. The raters' scoring was cross-referenced following an inter-rater reliability measure, and further studied by performing multiple ratings comparisons and matrix analyses. The results for methodological quality were at a quite good level (quantitative articles: mean = 0.737, SD = 0.084; qualitative articles: mean = 0.677, SD = 0.144), following a moderate but statistically significant level of agreement between the raters (W = 0.44, χ 2 = 117.249, p = 0.020). We conclude that the standards for implementation and reporting are of high quality; however, certain improvements are needed to reach the stringent levels presumed for such an influential interdisciplinary scientific field.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%