Table 2.
Specific findings
| Number | Author | Specific finding | Effect size |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lang A et al. (2020) [23] | Effect of Auditory Stimulation on Sleep–Wake-States | The time spent in the three behavioral states: F(1.53, 49.03) = 14.71, p < 0.001 |
| Effect of Voice Familiarity on Sleep–Wake-States | STATE*VOICE: F(1.58, 51.30) = 1.71, p = 0.196 | ||
| Effect of Rhyme Familiarity on Sleep–Wake-States | STATE*RHYME: F(1.44, 31.70) = 0.21, p = 0.752 | ||
| Effect of Auditory Stimulation on Physiology (HR) | GROUP (F(1, 29) = 8.99, p = 0.006 | ||
| 2 | Lang et al. (2020) [24] | Effect of Rhyme Familiarity on Infant’s Heart Rate | OR; F(1, 21) = 0.01, p = 0.972, |
| Effect of Voice Familiarity on Infant’s Heart Rate | VOICE F(1, 32) = 0.10, p = 0.750 | ||
| Effect of Rhyme Familiarity on Infant’s Brain Physiology | RHYME _ FREQ (F(2, 46) = 6.16, p = 0.004, after correcting for multiple comparisons:p > 0.0166 | ||
| Effect of Voice Familiarity on Infant’s Brain Physiology | VOICE (F(1, 36) = 9.39, p = 0.004 | ||
| 3 | Partanen E et al.(2013) [17] | MMRs for vowel identity changes of the syllable |
Learning group: t(16) = 2.536, P < 0.022, control group: t(15) = 2.577,P < 0.021 |
| MMRs for pitch changes of the syllable |
Learning group: t(16) = 3.640, P < 0.002 Control group: t(31) = 2.122, P < 0.042, d = 0.763 |
||
| 4 | Partanen E et al.(2013) [25] | responses to the unchanged sounds |
Learning group at birth: (t(19) = 2.11, p,0.049, d = 0.97) Learning group at the age of four months (t(16) = 3.33, p,0.004, d = 1.68) |
| Amplitudes of response at birth | unchanged (r = 0.74, p,0.015, R2 = 0.54) and changed sounds (r = 0.68, p,0.032, R2 = 0.46) | ||
| 5 | Arya R et al.(2012) [26] | BNBAS |
Habituation (ES 1.05, 95% CI 0.53–1.57, P = 0.0001), orientation (ES 1.13, 95% CI 0.82–1.44, P < 0.0001), motor performance (ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.0–0.5, P = 0.0479), range of State (ES 0.31 95% CI 0.17- 0.45 P < 0.0001), regulation of state (ES 0.54 95% CI 0.28, 0.80 P < 0.0001), and autonomic stability (ES 0.26 95% CI 0.06, 0.46 P = 0.0102) |
| 6 | Granier-Deferre C et al.(2011) [27] | Heart Rate analysis of the subjects with a cardiac deceleration |
mixed ANOVA on the z-scores: Group, F (1, 28) = .30, p = .59, Melody, F (1,28) = 1.35, p = .26, Group x Melody interaction, F (1, 28) = 1.22, p = .28 Time, F (149, 4172) = 13.02, p,.00001, Time x Group, F (149, 4172) = 1.38, p,.0017, Time x Melody, F (149, 4172) = 1.79, p,.00001, |
| 7 | James D et al.(2002) [28] | Neonatal behavioral states |
median time to a state change (P = 0.01) median time to S1 (P = 0.06) median time to exhibited awake states (S4 and S5) (P = 0.05) transitions during exposure to music compared to the baseline period (P = 0.05 and P = 0.04) |
| 8 | Decasper A et al. (1986) [29] | IBI of nonnutritive sucking |
baseline conditional probabilities of target and novel stories: t(11) < 0.1 reinforcement ratios of matched-subject pairs target-story ratios: t(11) = 2.68, p < .05, novel-story ratios: t(11) < 0.1 |
RCT Randomized Control Trial, EG Experiment Group, CG Control Group, GA Gestational Age, EEG Electroencephalography, hdEEG high-density Electroencephalography, ECG Electrocardiography, MMR Mismatch Response, ERP Event-related Potentials, BNBAS Neonatal Behavioral Assessment, HR Heart Rate, HRV Heart Rate Variability, IBI Interburst intervals, ES Effect size
* interaction