Exploring the interaction between cannabis and music

Abstract

Cannabis use has long been associated with enhanced music experiences, yet scientific research on its effects on auditory perception remains limited. This convergent mixed‐methods self‐report study investigated how recreational cannabis users experience auditory stimulation and music in particular. A total of 104 participants completed an online questionnaire, 15 of which were selected to participate in an optional semi‐structured interview. Quantitative analyses showed that listening to music was the most commonly reported activity while high, indicated by 45% of participants. Participants reported significantly greater hearing sensitivity (p < 0.001) and state absorption in music (p < 0.001) while high compared to sober. Higher trait absorption in music was associated with greater state absorption in music while high. Qualitative thematic analysis identified four main themes: (1) altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations, (2) auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload, (3) emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation, and (4) embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation. This study provides a novel theoretical framework to understand the complex interactions between cannabis and musical experience.

This convergent mixed‐methods self‐report design examines the effects of cannabis on music and auditory experiences. Quantitative findings include reports of cannabis influencing auditory perception, sensitivity, and increased state absorption in music while high. Thematic analysis revealed four core patterns: (1) altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations, (2) auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload, (3) emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation, and (4) embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation.

INTRODUCTION

Cannabis is widely consumed. Over 50 million Americans (about 19%) have used it at least once in 2021 ¹ and a third of Canadian adults use it recreationally. ² Cannabis users report significant enhancements of musical enjoyment while high. ³ The prevalence of recreational cannabis use invites further investigation about its myriad perceptual effects, including potential effects on hearing sensitivity, ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ and musical experience. ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁷ , ⁸ Although early research in this area may be limited by methodological standards, it offers valuable foundational insights into the perceptual effects of cannabis, many of which appear consistent across decades of user reports. These historical accounts remain relevant, even as the chemical composition of commercially available cannabis has evolved. The concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive compound, has increased substantially in recent years, ⁹ and cannabidiol (CBD), the primary nonpsychoactive compound, is now more thoroughly characterized and understood by both producers and consumers. ¹⁰ These developments highlight the importance of revisiting longstanding experiential claims within the context of contemporary cannabis formulations and usage patterns.

Tart utilized an extensive 220‐item questionnaire to explore a range of self‐reported effects of cannabis use. ⁴ , ⁵ One hundred and fifty experienced cannabis users were asked to reflect on their cannabis‐induced state through a 220‐item self‐report questionnaire. The first category included self‐reported aspects of hearing sensitivity, such as hearing more subtle qualities of sound. The second category concerned self‐reported aspects of auditory stream segregation, including the ability to experience greater separation between streams. The third category captured the self‐reported increase in vividness of auditory imagery (imagined or recollected music or sound). The most common of these auditory effects was increased hearing sensitivity to subtle changes in sounds. Seventy percent of users reported experiencing this effect “very often/usually,” typically occurring at lower intoxication levels (27% at “very low” to 51% at “low” levels). For example, music was judged to be “purer and more distinct,” and the rhythm was judged to be more prominent.

A double‐blind study by Globus et al. ⁶ attempted to address some aspects of Tart's auditory findings using an experimental framework. ⁴ , ⁵ Forty‐two male participants were randomly assigned to groups that received cannabis prior to, or after a training phase. During training, all participants heard a criterion tone (87 dB, 610 Hz) followed by a test tone presented at a lower sound level. Participants adjusted the test tone to a level that was equal in loudness with the criterion tone. After the training phase, the loudness matching exercise was repeated without the support of the criterion tone, forcing the participants to rely on auditory memory. Results showed that the group that received cannabis prior to training matched the comparison tone relatively accurately. However, participants receiving cannabis after training adjusted the comparison tone such that it was louder than the criterion, suggesting that tones appear quieter while listening under the influence, or that some response bias exists when making a judgment while under the influence. ⁶ These findings suggest a difference in auditory perception between sober and high states, which was described mechanistically as an expanded subjective dimension of sensitivity, sometimes described as “expansion of consciousness.”

While Tart's cannabis and music research may be considered dated, ⁴ , ⁵ it remains one of the few studies to assess self‐reported auditory changes associated while high, including hearing sensitivity. The study provides a foundational framework for exploring perceptual phenomena that remain underinvestigated in current literature. Furthermore, findings from Globus et al. offer experimental support for cannabis‐related alterations in perceived auditory sensitivity, ⁶ lending partial validation to the self‐report observations from Tart. ⁴ , ⁵ In the absence of validated tools specific to this domain, the inclusion of auditory experience items in our survey is justified as a preliminary means of capturing this important aspect of subjective experiences, with the goal of informing the development of more refined instruments in future research.

More recently, one study that explored auditory‐evoked potentials using electroencephalography (EEG) in cannabis users revealed a reduced P300 response when discriminating between target tone sequences relative to nontarget tones —suggesting selective attention to auditory stimuli processing is diminished in cannabis users. ¹¹ However, the most foundational evidence on the acute effects of cannabis on auditory processing can be found in the early work. ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶

Fachner conducted a mobile EEG study with four participants who were asked to consume cannabis (in the form of a joint) in their living room while listening to experimenter‐selected music. ⁷ The joint was composed of tobacco and cannabis possessing THC. Prior to cannabis consumption, a baseline period of EEG activity was collected that involved listening to three pieces of music, presented sequentially. While listening to the same three pieces of music after cannabis consumption, Fachner observed distinct increases in spectral power: (1) alpha power in parietal electrodes, (2) theta power in right temporal electrodes, and (3) alpha power in occipital electrodes. However, Fachner's study only had four participants and without a control group the author was limited in their ability to draw conclusions. Nevertheless, Fachner boldly suggested that this pattern of altered brainwave activity might indicate that cannabis can function as a type of “hearing aid” that enhances the perception of sound.

Webster conducted a “speculative exploration” comprising anecdotal accounts and personal opinions, suggesting that music appreciation may be enhanced while under the influence of cannabis. ⁸ Cannabis users often reported a heightened appreciation for music, indicating that it increased openness to various genres and fostered music empathy, facilitating appreciation for different genres of music.

Furthermore, music appreciation has been closely linked to the experience of absorption, a phenomenon where one's attention becomes deeply immersed in musical experiences, contributing to the aesthetic impact and depth of the listening experience. ¹² Trait absorption represents a stable personality characteristic describing the general tendency to become deeply involved in sensory and imaginative experiences, ¹³ a predisposition measured in the musical context, which indicates an individual's likelihood of experiencing profound immersion and emotional connection with music. ¹⁴ Conversely, state absorption is a temporary, context‐dependent condition of heightened attentional focus and immersion in a present experience, ¹³ such as the immediate sensation of being utterly lost in the music, potentially with altered perceptions of time and self. ¹⁵ Given that cannabis use has been reported to alter sensory perception and alter consciousness, it is plausible that it could intensify state absorption during music perception, potentially leading to a greater appreciation of the auditory experience.

To the authors’ knowledge, only one fMRI study has examined the effects of cannabis on music perception. In this randomized controlled, double‐blind study, 16 participants inhaled cannabis under three conditions over three separate sessions: (1) cannabis with THC but without significant traces of CBD (THC‐only), (2) cannabis with THC and CBD (THC + CBD), and (3) a placebo without significant traces of THC or CBD. Participants listened to six 21‐second classical music pieces and six scrambled versions of the same pieces. These musical pieces were presented in a randomized order across the sessions. Self‐report scales regarding desire to listen were administered before participants inhaled (predrug), 5 min after inhaling but before the scan (postdrug), and 90 min after consuming cannabis (postscan). Results showed that THC + CBD increased hemodynamic response in the ventral striatal reward pathway and enhanced connectivity between the ventral striatum and auditory cortex. THC‐only decreased response in auditory cortices, right hippocampus/parahippocampal gyrus, right amygdala, and right ventral striatum. ¹⁶ These weakened activations in auditory and reward processing areas are somewhat paradoxical given that this same condition led to self‐reported increases in the desire to listen to music.

A common experience associated with extreme cannabis‐induced states includes synesthesia. ⁴ , ⁵ Use of highly concentrated THC cannabis has been associated with synesthesia‐like experiences. ¹⁷ Additionally, evidence suggests that high‐THC cannabis use may be able to elicit experiences commonly associated with psychedelics; however, these effects may not have been observed in controlled research studies due to the doses, set, and settings commonly used. ¹⁸ Hallucinatory effects of acute cannabis use have been observed in a case study of a participant who experienced altered auditory and visual perceptions, hypersensitivity to voices, visual distortions, and dissociation after inhaling 25 mg of THC. ¹⁹

In summary, despite the current prevalence of cannabis consumption, there have been a limited number of studies to date that investigate cannabis‐induced states and auditory perception. The existing literature suggests that cannabis may alter auditory perception and musical experiences, including changes in perceived hearing sensitivity, ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ vivid auditory imagery, ⁴ , ⁵ greater openness to diverse musical genres, ⁸ and an increased desire to listen to music. ¹⁶ Given the evolving landscape of cannabis products and their use coupled with limitations of past research, there is a clear need for renewed investigation into the effects of contemporary cannabis use on auditory perception. Investigating the interactions between cannabis and music is especially relevant provided their predominant co‐use. Understanding their interactions may offer valuable insight in fields such as: public policy—areas related to harm reduction and responsible recreational use and therapeutic applications—including music‐based interventions. While it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions, establishing a clearer picture of how cannabis affects music perception and engagement may inform policy development and clinical practice.

This exploratory research examines two quantitative questions: (1) Does listening to music while high on cannabis increase one's absorption in music compared to when one is sober? and (2) Are auditory experiences heightened with an increased sensitivity to sound while one is high on cannabis? Additionally, the primary qualitative research question in this study is: How is auditory and music perception altered while under a cannabis‐induced state of consciousness?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics

Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by Toronto Metropolitan University's Research Ethics Board under REB 2022–451.

Design

This study employed a convergent mixed‐methods self‐report design over two stages. Initially, participants completed an online questionnaire via Qualtrics, ²⁰ followed by an optional online semistructured interview via Zoom. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed independently, then integrated during interpretation. This design suited the study's exploratory aim, combining quantitative data to identify broad patterns with qualitative insights to provide depth and context on how cannabis affects auditory and music perception.

Participants

Participants were recruited through Toronto Metropolitan University's psychology SONA pool, and flyers at 38 cannabis dispensaries across the Greater Toronto Area. A total of 104 participants from SONA (N = 71) and the wider community (N = 33) completed the questionnaire. The final sample included 33 men (32%) and 71 women (68%) with a minimum age of 19 years old and a maximum age of 58 years old (M _Age = 24.38, SD _Age = 7.58; Table 1). Fifteen of the 104 participants were interviewed: five (33%) men and nine (60%) women (Table 2). All participants were legally permitted to purchase and consume cannabis (19+) and identified as current experienced recreational users (defined as having used cannabis at least once a month within the past year, exclusively for recreational purposes rather than medicinal use). See Table 3 for more details on cannabis use habits.

TABLE 1.

Demographics questionnaire.

Demographics	Count
Age
19–29	88
30–39	12
40–49	2
50–59	2
Sex
Male	33
Female	71
Intersex	0
Other	0
Prefer not to say	0
Gender
Man	34
Woman	68
Another gender identity	1
Prefer not to say	1
Educational background
Grade 8 or less	0
High school diploma or equivalent	71
Registered apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma	0
College, CEGEP or other nonuniversity certificate or diploma	8
University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level	4
Bachelor's degree	13
Postgraduate degree above bachelor's level	8
Prefer not to say	0
Household income
Under $20,000	7
$20,000–40,000	12
$40,000–60,000	14
$60,000–80,000	14
$80,000–100,000	6
$100,000–120,000	13
$120,000–150,000	5
$150,000 or above	19
Prefer not to say	14
Employment status
Working full‐time, 35 h or more per week	25
Working part time, less than 35 h per week	34
Self‐employed	4
Unemployed, but looking for work	4
A student attending school full‐time	31
Retired	0
Not in the workforce	0
Other	6

TABLE 2.

Demographics individual interviews.

Participant ID	Age	Sex	Gender	Educational background	Household income	Employment status
IPC01	22	Male	Man	High school diploma or equivalent	$150,000 or above	Working part‐time, that is, less than 35 h per week
IPC02	21	Female	Woman	Bachelor's degree	$150,000 or above	A student attending school full‐time
IPC03	20	Female	Woman	High school diploma or equivalent	$60,000 to just under $80,000	A student attending school full‐time
IPC04	23	Female	Man	High school diploma or equivalent	$20,000 to just under $40,000	Unemployed
IPC05	30	Male	Man	Bachelor's degree	$40,000 to just under $60,000	Self‐employed
IPC06	21	Female	Woman	Bachelor's degree	$20,000 to just under $40,000	A student attending school full‐time
IPS07	37	Female	Woman	College, CEGEP, or other nonuniversity certificate or diploma	$60,000 to just under $80,000	Working full‐time, that is, 35 or more hours per week
IPC08	34	Male	Man	College, CEGEP, or other nonuniversity certificate or diploma	$20,000 to just under $40,000	Other: on EI but will return to work shortly
IPS09	22	Female	Woman	High school	$100,000 to just under $120,000	Working part‐time, that is, less than 35 h per week
IPC10	58	Male	Man	Postgraduate degree above bachelor's level	$150,000 or above	Working full‐time, that is, 35 or more hours per week
IPC11	45	Female	Woman	Bachelor's degree	$60,000 to just under $80,000	Working full‐time, that is, 35 or more hours per week
IPS12	30	Male	Man	High school diploma or equivalent	$40,000 to just under $60,000	Self‐employed
IPS13	19	Female	Woman	High school diploma or equivalent	$60,000 to just under $80,000	Working part‐time, that is, less than 35 h per week
IPS14	21	Female	Woman	College, CEGEP, or other nonuniversity certificate or diploma	$100,000 to just under $120,000	Working part‐time, that is, less than 35 h per week
IPC15	31	Female	Woman	Postgraduate degree above bachelor's level	$20,000 to just under $40,000	A student attending school full‐time

TABLE 3.

Cannabis use habits.

	SONA (N = 71)	Community (N = 33)	Both (N = 104)
Age of initiation (M age), SD	17 (16.69), 2.11	18 (18.18), 7.28	17 (17.04), 4.62
Frequency of use
Once a week	24% (17)	6% (2)	18% (19)
Greater than once a week	17% (12)	24% (8)	19% (20)
Everyday	17% (12)	21% (7)	18% (19)
Greater than once a day	6% (4)	27% (9)	13% (13)
Few times per month	25% (18)	15% (5)	22% (23)
Few times per year	11% (8)	6% (2)	10% (10)
Context
Socially	42% (30)	18% (6)	35% (36)
Alone	52% (37)	67% (22)	57% (59)
Both	6% (4)	15% (5)	9% (9)
Setting (select more than 1)	(321 = total)	(161 = total)	(482 = total)
Own home	19% (60)	20% (32)	19% (92)
Private space (other than home)	14% (46)	11% (17)	13% (63)
Parties	16% (50)	12% (20)	15% (70)
Concerts/sports events/festivals	7% (23)	12% (19)	9% (42)
Restaurants/cafés/coffee shops	3% (10)	8% (13)	5% (23)
Night club/bar/pub	8% (26)	8% (13)	8% (39)
Indoor public building	5% (17)	6% (9)	5% (26)
School	5% (16)	4% (7)	5% (23)
Work	5% (10)	3% (5)	3% (15)
Car	3% (16)	4% (7)	5% (23)
Hospital	0% (0)	1% (1)	0.2% (1)
Outdoor publicly accessible place	15% (47)	11% (17)	13% (64)
Other	0% (0)	1% (1)	0.2% (1)
Time of day
Day	1% (1)	3% (1)	2% (2)
Evening	85% (60)	76% (25)	82% (85)
Other—both	14% (10)	21% (7)	16% (17)
Amount spent monthly (M amount), SD	$51.65, 54.42	$101.84, 136.67	$66.90, 90.21
Strain
Sativa	18% (13)	39% (13)	25% (26)
Indica	30% (21)	15% (5)	25% (26)
Ruderalis	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Hybrid	42% (30)	36% (12)	40% (42)
CBD	3% (2)	3% (1)	3% (3)
Other	4% (3)	6% (2)	5% (5)
Unsure	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Did not respond	3% (2)	0% (0)	2% (2)
Composition (select more than 1)	(98 = total)	(45 = total)	(143 = total)
High THC/low CBD	23% (23)	31% (14)	26% (37)
High THC/mid CBD	14%) (14)	18% (8)	15% (22)
High THC/high CBD	8% (8)	4% (2)	7% (10)
Mid THC/low CBD	4% (4)	7% (3)	5% (7)
Mid THC/mid CBD	14% (14)	16% (7)	15% (21)
Mid THC/high CBD	7% (7)	2% (1)	6% (8)
Low THC/low CBD	4% (4)	4% (2)	4% (6)
Low THC/mid CBD	2% (2)	2% (1)	2% (3)
Low THC/high CBD	9% (9)	9% (4)	9% (13)
Unsure	13% (13)	7% (3)	11% (16)
Product used most often
Dried cannabis flower (e.g., bud, weed)	49% (35)	61% (20)	53% (55)
Liquid concentrates (e.g., vape, distillates)	39% (28)	12% (4)	31% (32)
Solid concentrates (e.g., shatter, wax)	1% (1)	0% (0)	1% (1)
Edibles (e.g., gummies, drinks)	10% (7)	24% (8)	14% (15)
Topicals (e.g., lotions, creams)	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Other	0% (0)	3% (1)	1% (1)
Ways of using (select more than 1)	(168 = total)	(87 = total)	(255 = total)
Smoked	38% (63)	30% (26)	35% (89)
Eaten	21% (36)	26% (23)	23% (59)
Drank	8% (14)	16% (14)	11% (28)
Vaporized	29% (49)	20% (17)	26% (66)
Dabbing	2% (3)	6% (5)	3% (8)
Used some other way	2% (3)	3% (2)	2% (5)
Typical level of high (0–100) (M high), SD	55.49, 19.94	61.12, 29.47	57.28, 23.39

Materials

The questionnaire comprised questions about demographics, cannabis use, auditory, and music experiences while high (Supporting Information S1). Measures used were the Canadian Cannabis Survey (CCS), ²¹ the Cannabis Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), ²² the Hearing Sense Questionnaire (HSQ), ⁴ , ⁵ a two‐question measure of state absorption in music as adapted from the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory, ¹³ , ¹⁵ and the trait absorption in music measure: the Absorption in Music Scale (AIMS). ¹⁴

Canadian Cannabis Survey

The aim of the CCS is to obtain detailed information about the habits of people who use cannabis and behaviors relative to cannabis use. The questionnaire battery incorporated segments of the CCS to capture demographic information: age, sex, gender, educational background, income, and employment status; and cannabis use habits: cannabis strain composition (e.g., high THC/low CBD), method of consumption (e.g., smoking, ingestion, vaporization), daily consumption quantity, and settings of use.

Cannabis Experience Questionnaire

The CEQ consists of four sections: (1) cannabis use habits, (2) broader recreational drug use paired with cannabis, (3) experiences while smoking cannabis, and (4) experiences after smoking cannabis. For the purpose of this study, we only utilized section one to understand cannabis use habits, including the age of initiation, frequency of use, and contexts of consumption.

Hearing Sense Questionnaire

The HSQ items make up a small subset of the broader 220‐item questionnaire covering various descriptions of effects the users might have experienced. The HSQ outlines various auditory experiences while under the influence of cannabis. Response options ranged from “never” to “usually” for frequency and from “just” to “maximum” for the degree of high experienced.

State absorption in music

We assessed participants’ level of state absorption in music while high, compared to sober. State absorption in music was rated on a scale of 1–7 where (1) represents being “distracted by extraneous impressions or events, and not able to become immersed in the music,” and (7) represents being “not at all distracted by extraneous impressions or events, and able to become immersed in the music.” A higher score indicated a greater level of state absorption in music.

Absorption in Music Scale

The AIMS is a measure designed to assess trait absorption in music, which reflects the extent to which individuals become deeply immersed in music while listening. This concept is rooted in the idea that music can induce a state of deep involvement, during which listeners may lose track of time, feel emotionally connected, or experience heightened sensory engagement. Trait absorption in music responses were rated on a scale of 1–5 where (1) indicates “strongly disagree” and (5) indicates “strongly agree.” A higher score signified a higher level of trait absorption in music. The AIMS demonstrates strong psychometric properties including internal consistency, temporal reliability, and convergent validity with the Tellegen Absorption Scale ²³ and the Fantasy subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. ²⁴ Further, trait absorption in music has been conceptualized as a distinct aspect of musical reward. ²⁵

Semistructured interview

Questions generated for the semistructured interview were developed by authors Lena Darakjian, Chi Yhun Lo, and Frank A. Russo, who have combined expertise in auditory perception, music psychology, absorption, and qualitative methods. The semistructured interviews provided a nuanced understanding of how participants subjectively evaluated auditory processes. Nine questions were developed to assess effects of cannabis on auditory and music experience such as emotional effects, sensory interactions, and listening habits (Supporting Information S2).

Procedures

All participants provided informed consent before engaging in the questionnaire or the interview, which detailed the voluntary nature of their involvement and underscored their right to withdraw from the study at any point without consequences. Participants were asked to complete the online questionnaire while sober and retrospectively recall their experiences. After completing the questionnaire, participants were given the option to be contacted for a Zoom interview. On average, the questionnaire took approximately 2 h and 20 min to complete, while the semistructured interviews lasted an average of 54 min. Participants were permitted and encouraged to take breaks during both components, which likely contributed to the extended duration. However, most questionnaire sessions were completed in a single sitting (≤3 h), with an average duration of 35 min, suggesting that the questionnaire itself was substantially shorter without extended breaks.

The research team employed criterion‐i purposive sampling to identify a shortlist of 15 interviewees who expressed interest in participating. ²⁶ This sampling method is designed to select individuals with specific expertise or knowledge about the phenomenon of interest. ²⁷ Criteria for selecting individuals included: (1) expressing interest in the interview at the end of the questionnaire, (2) experiencing an altered state of consciousness affecting auditory experiences while high, and (3) encountering notable auditory experiences such as auditory hallucinations or synesthesia, as queried in the questionnaire.

The Zoom interviews were audio recorded for transcription purposes. The interviewer (Lena Darakjian) deidentified and reviewed all interview responses to ensure accurate transcription of participant data. Questionnaire participant ID codes ranged from QP1–104 while interview participant ID codes ranged from IPC or IPS 1–15 (interview participant community, IPC, or interview participant SONA, IPS).

Participants recruited from SONA received one course credit for an hour of their time. Community members responding to the questionnaire did so voluntarily. All interview participants were entered into a draw for a $50 gift card to acknowledge their commitment to the study.

Data analysis

All quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire underwent statistical analysis using R Studio R version 4.3.1 (2023‐06‐16 ucrt).

The qualitative data were subjected to analysis employing the six‐phase approach to thematic analysis which involved: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generation of initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing a data findings report. ²⁸ Coding and analysis utilized the NVivo 14 program. ²⁹ The process involved conducting and transcribing interviews and then reviewing the transcripts. Initial codes were generated across the dataset and consolidated into potential themes. Themes were reviewed to ensure they aligned with the codes and dataset. Using group working sessions, authors Lena Darakjian, Chi Yhun Lo, and Frank A. Russo refined and reviewed the codes and themes to achieve consensus on the key findings, leading to the final themes presented.

RESULTS

Quantitative analyses

Cannabis and self‐reported auditory perception

Cannabis and hearing were explored through questions generated by the research team and the HSQ. Chi‐square goodness‐of‐fit tests was conducted to assess the distribution of responses to the following questions: (1) “Do you think cannabis influences your hearing/listening experience?” The results indicated a significant difference in the distribution of responses (χ ²(2) = 27.56, p < 0.001), with 62 participants (60%) reporting that cannabis influenced their hearing, 20 participants (19%) reporting no influence, and 22 participants (21%) were not sure (Figure 1). (2) “Do you think your hearing sensitivity is better or worse when ‘stoned’ or ‘high’?.” The results indicated a significant difference in the distribution of responses (χ² (2) = 14.99, p = 0.0006), with 51 participants (50%) reporting better hearing sensitivity, 19 participants (18%) reporting worse hearing sensitivity, and 33 participants (32%) reporting no difference (Figure 2). A chi‐square test of independence was conducted to examine whether the self‐reported hearing perception when high differed significantly among the responses to the question “Would you say your hearing is improved, the same, or worsened when ‘stoned’ or ‘high’?.” The results indicated a statistically significant difference in response (χ ²(2) = 37.75, p < 0.001), with 37 (35.6%) participants reporting “better,” 59 (56.7%) participants reporting “worse” and 8 (7.7%) participants reporting “no difference” (Figure 3).

FIGURE 1.

A bar graph illustrating the frequency of responses regarding whether participants believe cannabis affects their hearing. The dashed line indicates the comparison across groups, while the asterisks (***) denote a statistically significant result at p < 0.001. Error bars denote ± standard error.

FIGURE 2.

A bar graph displaying participants’ responses concerning changes in hearing sensitivity while under the influence of cannabis. The dashed line indicates the comparison across groups, while the asterisks (***) denote a statistically significant result at p < 0.001. Error bars denote ± standard error.

FIGURE 3.

A bar graph representing participants’ perception of sound quality when high. The dashed line indicates the comparison across groups, while the asterisks (***) denote a statistically significant result at p < 0.001. Error bars denote ± standard error.

To examine whether the current study's HSQ findings were equivalent to Tart's, ⁴ , ⁵ we conducted a series of chi‐square tests of homogeneity across seven key questions. Each question was tested both for frequency of experience (i.e., from “never” to “usually”) and for how high participants felt (i.e., from “just” to “maximum”). Bonferroni corrections were applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. It was found that all items of auditory acuity and synesthesia significantly differed from the previous findings (p < 0.01), while auditory imagery, hearing your own voice, and sound and space did not. Details are reported in Table 4 and Supporting Information S4.

TABLE 4.

HSQ data comparison.

Question	Chi‐square statistic	p value	Adjusted p value	Difference in proportions (95% CI)
I can hear more subtle changes in sounds, for example, the notes of music are purer and more distinct, the rhythm stands out more.	73.46	<0.01	<0.01	−0.03 (−0.06, −0.005)
I can understand the words of songs which are not clear when straight.	34.48	<0.01	<0.01	−0.07 (−0.12, −0.03)
I have difficulty hearing things clearly: sounds are blurry and indistinct.	43.64	<0.01	<0.01	0.24 (0.14, 0.34)
If I try to have an auditory image, hear something in my mind, remember a sound, it is more vivid than when straight.	16.38	0.06	0.40	0.006 (−0.05, 0.06)
The sound quality of my own voice changes, so that I sound different to myself when I talk.	13.82	0.13	0.91	−0.07 (−0.14, −0.005)
Sounds have visual images or colors associated with them, synchronized with them.	36.23	<0.01	<0.01	−0.08 (−0.16, −0.01)
With my eyes closed and just listening to sounds, the space around me becomes an auditory space (a place where things are arranged according to their sound characteristics), instead of visual geometric characteristics (e.g., where your furniture is located in your room).	8.82	0.46	1.00	−0.01 (−0.07, 0.05)

Cannabis and music experiences

Descriptive statistics for common activities that participants reported while high are as follows. Listening to music was rated the most popular activity (45%) compared to videos (38%), podcasts (9%), silence (4%), radio segments (2%), or other (2%). Furthermore, 69% of participants reported often or always listening to music while high. Eighty percent of participants also prefer listening to music while high compared to not. Seventy percent of participants reported that their home was their preferred place to pair cannabis and music.

The state absorption in music measure for high versus sober was probed for further analysis. Visual inspection of Q–Q plots indicated that the levels of state absorption in music for the high condition significantly deviated from a normal distribution (W = 0.86, p < 0.001). Hence, a nonparametric test was used for the analysis. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test revealed a significant difference in levels of state absorption in music across conditions (V = 3470.5, p < 0.001). Specifically, participants showed greater state absorption in music while high (M = 5.57, SD = 1.41) compared to sober (M = 4.45, SD = 1.31; Figure 4).

FIGURE 4.

A bar graph illustrating self‐reported levels of state absorption in music while high, compared to when sober. The dashed line indicates the comparison across groups, while the asterisks (***) denote a statistically significant result at p < 0.001. Error bars denote ± standard error mean.

Participants also varied in their trait absorption in music as measured by the AIMS with scores between 56 and 169 (M = 123.8, SD = 24.5). Pearson's correlation revealed participants’ level of trait absorption in music was positively correlated with their state absorption in music scores (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). Table 5 presents a more comprehensive correlation matrix between all variables (i.e., age, sex, lifetime cannabis use, daily cannabis use, trait absorption in music, and state absorption in music) and their respective means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of trait absorption in music on state absorption in music [R ² = 0.146, F(2,101) = 8.66, p = 0.0003], but not daily cannabis use.

TABLE 5.

Correlation matrix.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Age	24.38	7.58
2. Sex	1.68	0.47	−0.20 *
			[−0.38, −0.01]
3. Lifetime cannabis use	7.22	6.83	0.81 **	−0.21 *
			[0.73, 0.87]	[−0.39, −0.02]
4. Daily cannabis use	2.61	0.87	0.09	−0.14	0.02
			[−0.10, 0.28]	[−0.33, 0.05]	[−0.17, 0.22]
5. Trait absorption	123.78	24.54	−0.27 **	0.10	−0.21 *	−0.07
			[−0.44, −0.09]	[−0.09, 0.29]	[−0.39, −0.02]	[−0.26, 0.12]
6. State absorption	5.57	1.41	0.11	−0.11	0.07	−0.06	0.38 **
			[−0.09, 0.29]	[−0.29, 0.09]	[−0.13, 0.26]	[−0.25, 0.13]	[0.20, 0.53]

Note: Lifetime cannabis was measured as the difference between the age at which users started consuming cannabis minus their current age. Daily cannabis use is assessed by asking participants to report the number of hours they felt high from using cannabis on a typical day. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation. ⁵⁸

^* p < 0.05;

**p < 0.01.

At the group level, there was no change in the genres listened to while high compared to when sober. SONA participants predominantly favored pop (15%), soul/R&B (11%), and rap (11%) sober and soul/R&B (13%), pop (12%), rap (11%) while high. Community participants preferred pop (10%), rock (9%), soul/R&B and rap (8%) sober and pop (9%), rock and soul/R&B (8%), and rap (7%) while high. See Table 6 for full music genre preferences.

TABLE 6.

Music genre preferences.

	SONA (N = 71)	Community (N = 33)
Not high (select more than 1)	(394 = total)	(179 = total)
Electronica	6% (25)	6% (11)
New age	2% (9)	1% (2)
World	2% (9)	2% (4)
Pop	15% (58)	10% (18)
Country	4% (14)	7% (12)
Religious	1% (5)	1% (1)
Blues	2% (8)	4% (8)
Jazz	3% (12)	6% (11)
Bluegrass	0% (1)	2% (4)
Folk	4% (17)	3% (6)
Classical	4% (14)	4% (8)
Gospel	1% (5)	1% (2)
Opera	1% (3)	2%(3)
Rock	8% (30)	10% (17)
Punk	4% (17)	6% (10)
Alternative	9% (34)	6% (11)
Heavy metal	4% (15)	3% (5)
Rap	11% (42)	8% (15)
Soul/R&B	11% (45)	8% (15)
Funk	3% (11)	3% (6)
Reggae	3% (13)	4% (7)
Other	2% (7)	2% (3)
High (select more than 1)	(338 = total)	(177 = total)
Electronica	8% (27)	6% (10)
New age	2% (8)	2% (4)
World	2% (7)	3% (6)
Pop	12% (42)	9% (16)
Country	2% (7)	6% (11)
Religious	2% (6)	1% (2)
Blues	3% (11)	5% (8)
Jazz	4% (14)	5% (9)
Bluegrass	1% (2)	2% (3)
Folk	5% (16)	5% (8)
Classical	3% (10)	3% (6)
Gospel	2% (7)	2% (4)
Opera	1% (2)	1% (2)
Rock	6% (21)	8% (15)
Punk	3% (10)	5% (8)
Alternative	9% (31)	6% (11)
Heavy metal	2% (8)	2% (4)
Rap	11% (36)	8% (14)
Soul/R&B	13% (43)	8% (15)
Funk	3% (9)	4% (7)
Reggae	4% (15)	6% (10)
Other	2% (6)	2% (4)

Thematic analysis

Four themes emerged through the thematic analysis process: (1) altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations, (2) auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload, (3) emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation, and (4) embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation (Supporting Information S3 for details). Much of the data aligned with these themes, indicating data saturation.

Theme 1: Altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations

Participants reported changes to cognitive processing, noting altered attentiveness, absorption, interpretation of lyrics, memory, and critical analysis. Participants commonly reported drawing greater attention to auditory stimuli, such as music, while high.

When I'm not high, I just don't pay enough attention to the music, it's like background noise. Compared to when I am high, it's like that's the only thing I am focused on. (IPC01)

However, some participants noted that cannabis occasionally caused difficulties with allocation of attention, particularly in aurally overstimulating environments.

If I'm having a conversation with someone, I can focus on it really well. But if there's a lot of background noise, my brain is like ‘there's so much going on’. I can hear all of it at the same time, so it's 10 times harder to focus on one thing at a time. (IPC06)

Participants also reported absorption in the music that was intensified while high, aligning with the previously mentioned heightened state of sustained attention.

If I'm sober, I don't just listen to music and not do anything else. But when I'm high, I can definitely lie down and listen to music for a while… (IPS13)

Altered interpretations of lyrics were a common theme, with participants reporting a heightened focus on the meaning of lyrics when listening to music while high.

I find when I'm stoned, I tend to focus a little bit more on the meaning behind the lyrics. I've accidentally discovered some of the songs that I really like, and I Google them later and I'm like—that's actually about a really serious subject that I hadn't noticed before. I listen and dissect the lyrics a little bit more [when high] than I normally would. (IPS12)

Participants highlighted the use of cannabis in combination with music as a facilitator for memory recall. While this practice may yield positive outcomes for some, it also led to the resurgence of negative memories for others.

Using cannabis and listening to music helps me to recover memories that I thought were lost… I used to call him [his father] and say, ‘Remember, I was 4 years old, and this event happened….’ And he would say, ‘Yeah, we have pictures.’ (IPC10)

Yeah, I have flashbacks of past negative experiences. So, it's mostly shameful thoughts… Unpleasant things that have happened. (IPS12)

Participants noted an enhanced ability to analyze musical elements that they would not typically consider while sober. This introspection may suggest that cannabis has an impact on cognitive processes, especially in music appreciation and analysis.

I find that when I'm consuming cannabis, I'm able to connect different things that I wouldn't normally connect [when sober]. For music that would be scales, rhythm patterns, harmonies and how these coaligned together. I found the ability to critically think through cannabis—whether this was an A major scale or what kind of rhythms were they playing. (IPC08)

Theme 2: Auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload

Participants frequently reported variations in auditory perception, such as enhanced hearing sensitivity, new sound perspectives, and changes in audiovisual perception, rhythm, and timing. They described increased sensitivity of sounds, even when the set volume remained unchanged.

I find I'll be a lot more sensitive to sound, especially when it comes to trying to be respectful of other people in another room. I'll be way more likely to think music is too loud when in reality, it's not as loud as I think. (IPS09)

These experiences were not always positive, as the perception of louder sounding auditory stimuli may be associated with overstimulation and a tendency to become easily overwhelmed.

We talked about sounds seeming louder or more pronounced. I would say that I get a little bit more overwhelmed easily and the sounds in my environment play a part in that. Sometimes if I'm listening to a song and I get into one of those head spaces when I smoke cannabis, I'll have to turn off the music—like that's just too much right now. (IPS12)

Some participants reported experiencing auditory hallucinations, though these occurrences were rare and described as strange and unpleasant.

I smoked with high‐THC content, and then I laid down and I was hallucinating… But it was an intense and strange experience. I wasn't anxious, but I was experiencing someone talking… there was a whole conversation. (IPS07)

Participants have also reported listening to music with an open approach that is not typical of their sober listening habits. Familiar songs often sounded new or different when listened to while high. Participants frequently found themselves considering music in ways they had not previously contemplated.

When you're high, no matter what you've experienced beforehand, you are listening to instruments and songs from a completely different perspective… I think it's eye‐opening musically. (IPC03)

A participant with diagnosed autism also speculated that for a neurotypical person, heightened perception under the influence of cannabis might resemble the way individuals on the autism spectrum naturally experience sound—where different elements stand out more distinctly and are more easily separated from the overall mix.

I noticed how it [cannabis] makes things easier to listen to each instrument individually… What stands out to me the most is I always hear instruments I hadn't heard before I was high, as in the little details in the background… Being on the spectrum, I experience sounds differently already, and it just heightens that. I think for the average person, it might be comparable to what it's like to hear with autism. Things become more isolated. (IPC04)

Another commonly shared experience included altered audiovisual perception. For some participants, auditory and visual senses appeared to interact, resulting in an altered experience that some may relate to synesthesia.

If I close my eyes and I listen to music, I can sometimes visually see like colors, and what goes on… I find that it's visually intense for me. If I close my eyes listening to music, then it kind of changes what I see with my eyes closed. (IPC08)

Theme 3: Emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation

Participants demonstrated increased openness to emotion, either by allowing themselves to feel more deeply or by recognizing that the combination of cannabis and music evoked new emotional experiences.

When I'm not stoned, it's not as strong of an emotional response… Personally, I could cry to a song I heard for the first time that I'm hearing or the first few times… I'm using it [cannabis] to try to evoke an emotion. (IPC05)

This heightened emotional openness makes individuals receptive to a broader spectrum of feelings. As a result, certain songs might trigger intense emotions like fear or anxiety, intensifying these emotions for the listener and ultimately altering their usual response to music.

I remember listening to it [a song] for the first time high… and just being so instilled with fear. I created all these scenes and all these images of things that could be happening but definitely aren't… I was paralyzed with fear, and I didn't want to look at anything, I didn't want to move. (IPC03)

Participants indicated that heightened emotional sensitivity had a profound impact on their auditory experience while high.

Oh, I've cried listening to Adele—into my pillow, sobbed my eyes out. I'm not breaking up with anybody… but in my head, I am. For some reason… when I'm listening, I get very emotional… like super nostalgic, super happy, or bawling my eyes out, or anxious. (IPC06)

Cannabis was commonly used as a form of emotional regulation. Several participants preferred genres or styles of music that evoked a state of relaxation, particularly when overstimulated.

It really depends on what I'm feeling. I like jazz sometimes when I don't want lyrics, but I like the complexity of the melodies when I'm feeling upbeat. Reggae is really nice when I'm feeling chill. I think it really all depends on my mood. I don't think cannabis really depicts what I listen to—it accentuates how I'm feeling. I listen to what I want to listen to because of how I'm feeling and to amplify the mood I'm in. (IPC08)

Theme 4: Embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation

Participants reported enhanced embodiment, including greater physical sensitivity. They commonly noted increased awareness and responsiveness to auditory stimuli from both their environment and their own bodies. Many described feeling the music vibrating through their bodies, indicating an intensified physical experience.

I don't really listen to music very loud most of the time. So, it's not like I'm getting that body feeling—when it's really loud and it vibrates through you. But if I am listening to music and I am high, I almost get that same sort of feeling if you were at a concert. It moves through your body just a little bit differently. (IPC11)

Reports of feeling more engaged with the rhythm of the music elicited a desire to physically respond with tapping, nodding, or dancing. Participants perceived the timing changes in music primarily as longer than its intended duration, and in some cases, as shorter.

In terms of rhythm—I feel the beat. I feel it so well I can nod my head to it… It's very clear and very prominent to me. (IPC02)

The song could be like 3 min long, but when I am high it'll feel like 10 min long. It'll feel like I'm in the music like 10 times more. (IPC06)

Because I'm immersed in it, a 10‐min solo could go by, and it feels like no time had gone by. Whereas if I'm not immersed it, then the 10‐min jazz solo is going to be annoying and I'm not going to follow the trajectory. (IPC15)

Participants also acknowledged experiencing out‐of‐body sensations, feeling as though they were transported beyond their immediate surroundings into another reality. This phenomenon resembled dissociation from their current environment. These experiences were often accompanied by a sense of closer proximity to the artists.

Obviously I don't know what the experience was like [living in the 70s]. I can watch movies, and I can listen to music all I want. But there's something about being high and listening to that music that transcends you there and you're actually experiencing it. You also feel more personally connected with the band or the artist when you do that. (IPC03)

DISCUSSION

Summary

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first convergent mixed‐methods study exploring the influence of cannabis on hearing and music. These findings provide novel insights into the significant impact cannabis has on auditory experiences among recreational users.

The quantitative analysis outlined significant differences including heightened auditory sensitivity, increased state absorption in music, and a general preference for listening to music while high. Qualitatively, the thematic analysis generated four major themes: (1) altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations, (2) auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload, (3) emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation, and (4) embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation. These themes collectively bear a great deal of resemblance to the music‐related reward dimensions identified in the extended Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire (eBMRQ): musical seeking, emotion evocation, mood regulation, social reward, sensory‐motor, and absorption. ²⁵ It is important to note there was considerable individual variability in cannabis‐induced auditory experiences.

We propose a novel theoretical framework in which variability in musical experiences may be expanded or narrowed through cannabis‐induced changes in state absorption (Figure 5). The framework, illustrated in Figure 5, describes how the listener's experience may be shaped across the four interrelated thematic domains: cognition, auditory perception, emotion, and embodiment. Cannabis‐induced state absorption may function as an integrative mechanism that could amplify or constrain the depth and quality of a musical experience. For example, increased absorption may intensify the salience of musical features, facilitating novel associations, or deeper emotional resonance. Conversely, when attention becomes overly narrow or saturated, it may contribute to overstimulation or limit the user's auditory perceptual breadth. These modulations in users’ experiences are hypothesized to influence the subjective reward derived from music listening. As depicted in Figure 5, this unidirectional model posits that cannabis‐induced changes in state absorption may help explain the variability in rewarding musical experiences reported by users. This framework and integration of cannabis user's experience may also be understood with respect to the “expansion of consciousness” theory, in which subjective dimensions of sensitivity are thought to be expanded while under the influence of cannabis. ⁶

FIGURE 5.

A diagram illustrating how cannabis‐induced state absorption in sound and music interacts with reward. State absorption, influenced by cannabis use, may expand or narrow experiences across the four outlined themes, in a unidirectional relationship. This suggests that an individual's level of state absorption can modulate how these experiences may be rewarding.

Collectively, these findings suggest that cannabis modulates auditory and musical experiences through interacting perceptual, cognitive, and affective mechanisms. The following sections provide detailed analysis of these domains, beginning with self‐reported changes in auditory perception.

Cannabis and self‐reported auditory perception

Cannabis had a significant impact on auditory perception, with half of the participants noting improved hearing sensitivity. The findings of the present study are consistent with previous literature, ⁷ , ¹⁶ with both studies suggesting enhanced hearing sensitivity. While heightened hearing sensitivity was commonly reported, not all participants experienced this change, with a smaller subset of participants reporting no notable changes in their hearing sensitivity.

Our findings from the HSQ partially align with Tart, ⁴ , ⁵ though they diverge in several key areas as presented in Table 4 and Supporting Information S4. Both studies report similar results in the frequency and level of high associated with experiences related to auditory imagery, voice quality, and spatial aspects of sound. However, differences between the two studies were observed for the remaining areas: subtle changes in sounds, understanding lyrics, difficulty hearing clearly, and associating sounds with visual images/colors. These differences between studies may be attributed to changes in cannabis consumption and composition (such as higher THC) over the years. ⁹

Most participants experienced positive effects with cannabis, such as enhanced clarity of sound, which could contribute to a deeper appreciation of music and musical reward. However, there were also participants who noted negligible and/or negative impacts, such as feeling overwhelmed with overstimulation from sound. Variability in responses highlights the need for further investigation into individual factors that may modulate the effects of cannabis on hearing such as dose, potency, composition, and method of consumption. ³⁰ Overall, these findings suggest a complex relationship between cannabis use and auditory experiences.

Cannabis and music experiences

There was a strong preference for listening to music while high, emerging as the most popular activity. This finding aligns with past literature, where users have self‐reported significant enhancements in musical enjoyment while high which may explain this strong preference for the pairing. ³ Greater music enjoyment may be associated with the enhanced reward derived from cannabis‐induced heightened state absorption in music.

Given this strong link between cannabis use and music, it is relevant to consider whether specific musical preferences play a role in problematic substance use. Prior literature has explored this, indicating that musical preference for certain genres has been associated with dangerous or self‐injurious behaviors in substance use, collectively known as “problem music.” For example, it has been suggested that self‐awareness of potential harm creates contextual cues that triggers memories of past substance use and stimulates cravings. ³¹ Furthermore, some research has shown that preferences for nonmainstream music are positively associated with substance use, while preference for mainstream pop shows less substance use among adolescents. ³² Nevertheless, it should be noted that the majority of this work has focused on substances known to produce strong physical dependence, such as amphetamines and cocaine, rather than cannabis. Furthermore, many individuals who use cannabis enjoy a diverse spectrum of musical genres that is comparable to that of non‐users (e.g., rap, indie, disco, pop, blues, etc.). ³³ It is unclear if cannabis is inherently associated with “problem music,” as much of this correlational work is not genre‐selective, and cannabis use cannot be entirely disentangled from concurrent use with other substances in substance abusers.

Cannabis, reward, and music therapy

Although music listening is often described as a rewarding experience that may be enhanced while high, it is important to address the literature around behavioral impulsivity in terms of gratifying short‐term rewards. Particularly, individuals with poor impulse control may present reduced dopamine availability in D2 and D1 receptors and have an elevated dopaminergic response to substances, thereby requiring immediate alleviation of cravings through substance use. ³⁴ However, cannabis is distinct in that it may contain CBD that targets the endocannabinoid system, which has been shown to reduce craving and relapse through upregulation of CBD receptors. CBD has been shown to benefit patients with alcohol use disorder, opioid use disorder, and importantly, cannabis use disorders, in reducing cravings by blocking activity in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), implicated in reward‐signaling. ³⁵

Additionally, music therapy has shown promise in reducing cravings and improving treatment engagement among individuals with substance use disorders. A recent review found that music therapy, when added to standard care, significantly reduced drug cravings and enhanced motivation for recovery. ³⁶ These effects are likely mediated by the ability for music to reduce cravings by reactivating reward circuits in the brain (e.g., VTA and nucleus accumbens) that are also implicated in substance use and relapse. ³⁷ Therefore, emotionally salient experiences from dopamine‐release in music may help individuals recalibrate maladaptive reward responses and develop healthier coping strategies for managing substance use disorders. ³⁵

Cannabis and state absorption in music

Participants reported greater state absorption in music while high, indicating a heightened sense of immersion and engagement with music. Increased state absorption in music may explain reports of improved understanding of lyrics and overall enjoyment, potentially leading to a stronger sense of musical reward. These results resemble findings from Tart, ⁴ , ⁵ where cannabis users reported enhanced lyric comprehension and a clearer understanding of words and phrases in music. This experience often drew participants into the narratives of songs, particularly in ballads, which aligns with transportation theory. ³⁸ This theory suggests that the integration of cognitive, emotional and imaginative processes may lead to dissociation from one's present state. If users are sufficiently absorbed in the music, then their lyrical interpretation may potentially lead to dissociation when pairing cannabis and music.

While the concept of “set and setting” was originally developed in the context of psychedelic substances, it may also be applicable to cannabis use. ³⁹ “Set” refers to an individual's mindset, including their mood, expectations, and emotional state prior to use, whereas “setting” involves the physical surroundings, social environment, and interpersonal dynamics present during cannabis consumption. Environmental factors, particularly social relationships and physical proximity, have an important role in cannabis use and preferences for use locations. For instance, one study found that individuals are more likely to accept cannabis offers from socially close peers and in locations near home, suggesting that familiarity and social closeness increase the likelihood of use. This study was based on situational analyses, which emphasize that behavior is influenced by the specifics of who is present, what is happening, and where the event takes place. ⁴⁰ Social contexts, especially when involving admired peers with favorable attitudes toward drug use, also significantly impact decisions to use cannabis. ⁴¹

In our study, participants reported that their present mood, musical atmosphere, and physical environment played a significant role in their overall experience; suggesting both mood and environment can impact the subjective effects and overall experience of cannabis. The setting in which one engages in music listening may also impact their level of state absorption in music, especially in a location that is more comfortable. ¹³ Participants reported greater state absorption in music while under the influence of cannabis, particularly in familiar and preferred environments, such as their home. On the other hand, frequency of daily cannabis use did not affect state absorption in music levels.

Altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations

In addition to heightened absorption in music while high, participants reported changes in cognitive processes, including shifts in memory and attention. The findings suggest that cannabis use may result in idiosyncratic experiences, possibly enhancing certain cognitive functions while hindering others. Our findings are both convergent and divergent from existing literature on cannabis, memory, and music.

Some research has suggested that music may influence access to autobiographical memories. ⁴² For instance, music was found to evoke vivid autobiographical memories (MEAMs) more so than in response to famous faces. ⁴² Further, MEAMs often occur during routine or mentally undemanding tasks, such as relaxing. ⁴³ In the present study, many recalled autobiographical memories from music paired with cannabis which were positive and nostalgic, often related to childhood experiences or emotionally vivid memories. This aligns with a study by Inzlicht et al. which noted increased positive emotions such as awe, inspiration, and gratitude, as well as reduced stress and fear at the within‐person level among cannabis users. ⁴⁴ However, negative memories were also elicited for a few participants, and these unpleasant experiences were typically associated with situations in which strong negative emotions resurged. Ultimately, cannabis paired with music may moderate experiences associated with recollected MEAMs.

Research on cannabis and cognitive functioning often highlight negative effects, such as its negative impact on prospective memory in young adults without users’ awareness ⁴⁵ and its disruption of learning, memory, and attention during acute levels of high, particularly in inexperienced or recently abstinent users. ⁴⁶ While chronic users may develop neuroadaptations that would not impact performance, they may still experience slower information processing and cognitive deficits during abstinence, increasing the risk of relapse. ⁴⁶ Although the literature suggests poorer performance on memory‐related cognitive tasks for individuals under the influence, ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁶ the self‐reports from the present study show contrasting results in the context of music‐based experiences. These discrepancies may be due to inaccurate self‐perception on cognitive task performance while high or from other potential cognitive interactions with music while in this state. Webster's perspective suggests that cannabis may not impair memory but rather alter how they are retrieved, proposing that in altered states, short‐term memories may not be lost but temporarily inaccessible due to shifts in attentional focus. ⁸ This may elucidate the contrasting results in the present study, highlighting the need for further exploration into how the effects of cannabis and state absorption modulate cognitive functioning in music‐related contexts.

Auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload

The findings outline significant effects of auditory perception when high. In addition to altered hearing sensitivity, these changes included shifts in timing and rhythm and new perspectives on music perception. Some of these experiences align with themes which explored how music impacts adults on the autism spectrum: coping with auditory sensitivity, getting lost in music—losing track of time, music as a companion—feeling understood, emotional self‐regulation and expression, and social connection. ⁴⁷ Many participants reported feeling that their perception of time in terms of overall duration of music listening was altered. The experience of time slowing down (i.e., reporting that music felt longer than its actual duration) was common. However, a few participants reported the opposite effect of time speeding up. These findings are consistent with previous research on the effects of cannabis on time perception. In a critical review, ⁴⁸ identified an altered sense of time as one of the most commonly reported subjective effects of cannabis use. Approximately 70% of the reviewed time estimation studies report overestimation, suggesting a subjective experience of time appearing to pass more slowly. Similarly, a systematic review found cannabis use to be associated with a changed sense of time, which was linked to impaired motor behavior, short‐term memory, and decision making. ⁴⁹ These cannabis‐induced shifts in time perception may shape users’ musical experiences in varied ways, influencing how aspects such as duration and rhythm are subjectively perceived.

Altered hearing sensitivity and level of state absorption in music may also explain changes in ability to detect rhythmic changes and sensitivity to the beat (i.e., rhythmic structures stood out more). The inclination to move in response to the beat was commonly reported that may be the result of enhanced auditory and rhythm sensitivity. Thus, cannabis and music may have influenced participants’ engagement with rhythm, prompting physical responses such as tapping or dancing, which could contribute to a deeper sense of musical reward and appreciation. Many participants reported feeling the bass and beat of songs more intensely, potentially reinforcing the embodied experience and their desire to dance.

In addition to alterations in rhythm and timing perception, participants reported diverse auditory experiences including new perspectives on sound and changes in audiovisual perception. These perspectives were described as altered perception when high compared to when sober. Participants reported discriminating instrumentation while high in novel and distinct ways, suggesting a potential modification in auditory stream segregation or auditory object formation. We infer that cannabis may influence how listeners attend to auditory objects, particularly in complex scenes with competing sources. This alteration could interfere with top‐down attention processing due to changes in the perception of auditory features such as loudness, pitch, and timbre. ⁵⁰

Some participants also reported perceiving voices from nonmusical auditory stimuli to create the phenomenon known as auditory pareidolia (AP). AP occurs when a person perceives meaningful sounds, such as voices or music, in ambiguous auditory stimuli, like white noise or background sounds. ⁵¹ Some participants reported audiovisual experiences, including richer, more psychedelic visuals, varying by dose and strain. These observations align with previous literature stating that high‐THC cannabis and greater doses may induce such experiences. ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ , ¹⁹

Emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation

Participants reported emotional openness when pairing cannabis with music, including being receptive to a broader spectrum of feelings. Music is known to intensify pre‐existing emotions such as happiness or sadness in listeners ⁵² while emotional responses from cannabis use can include euphoria, elevated hostility, lack of responsiveness to emotional stimuli, and difficulties identifying and differentiating emotions. ⁵³ Emotional responses to music listening while high ranged from nostalgia and happiness to sadness and anxiety. Many of the reported emotional responses while pairing cannabis and music were positive, such as feeling relaxed. The positive emotionally intense experiences were often accompanied by a range of self‐reported physiological reactions, such as chills. These pleasant chills may have been triggered by a strong emotional response to structural musical elements such as harmonic sequences, the entrance of a voice, or an unexpected change in a song. ⁵⁴ Such musical structures may be perceived as more distinct or apparent while high. Cannabis may enhance these combined experiences, contributing to a heightened emotional response to music and in most cases an overall rewarding experience.

Heightened emotional sensitivity was a commonly reported experience when pairing music and cannabis, such as allowing oneself to feel more deeply. Although most participants reported overall positive experiences, some participants reported the resurgence of emotions tied to past negative experiences. As a result, certain songs were found to trigger intense emotions like fear or anxiety, intensifying these emotions for the listener and ultimately altering their usual response to music. Some of these negative emotional experiences also translated into behavioral responses such as crying and intense levels of anxiety that prevented dancing or responding to music as was typical. We hypothesize that combining cannabis and music may be super additive, resulting in more intense emotional experience than either would produce independently.

Music listening is commonly used to regulate emotions. ⁵⁵ For example, energetic and rhythmic music (e.g., soul and funk music) are positively associated with enhancing positive emotions and diminishing negative emotions. ⁵⁵ Participants noted choosing music that aligned with their current mood state or music that they felt was capable of regulating their current mood state in a manner that was desirable. They favored genres that evoked calm or neutral emotions (i.e., “chill” genres such as R&B) to manage their emotional states, or genres that matched their current mood or the emotion they sought to experience. Participants also reported avoiding cannabis use or overstimulating songs, in specific emotional states to prevent intensifying their feelings (e.g., avoiding sad songs when feeling down or fast‐paced songs when seeking relaxation). These reports align with the mood regulation facet of the eBMRQ and may thus be considered as contributing to music reward. ²⁵ Ultimately, the choice of music while high appears to be a deliberate and strategic process, guided by the intention to align music with one's desired mood.

Embodiment, immersion, and out‐of‐body dissociation

Participants reported heightened embodiment, characterized by increased physical sensitivity and awareness of auditory stimuli within their bodies. For instance, they described feeling the bass of music vibrating through their bodies, similar to the sensations experienced at live concerts without the volume being as loud. This somatosensory response to bass in music could interact with the reward system, allowing listeners to feel pleasure and dance more. ⁵⁶ This aligns with cannabis users’ experiences of feeling music more deeply from the combined bass vibrations and cannabis‐induced sensory enhancement. Since cannabis users often report enhanced bass perception and a stronger connection to their bodies while high, this may lead to increased movement and dancing to music. These experiences align with the sensory‐motor dimension of the eBMRQ. ²⁵

Heightened embodiment also extended to out‐of‐body sensations, where participants felt disconnected from their immediate surroundings and transported into settings related to the music aligning with transportation theory. ³⁸ Unlike traditional applications of the theory, which focus on reading, this phenomenon also occurs during passive activities like music listening. Participants reported feeling a closer connection to the artist, indicating a deep immersion in the auditory experience facilitated by cannabis. This idea parallels reports of readers experiencing the desire to connect with characters in a narrative. ⁵⁷ Overall, these accounts underscore the rewarding physical and embodied experiences participants undergo while listening to music high.

Limitations and future perspectives

Limitations include the retrospective nature of our data collection being reliant on participants’ recall, which may not fully capture the immediacy and intensity of their experiences while high. To address this, future research could use Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to gather real‐time data. The subjective appraisal and reporting of the impact of cannabis may also be confounded by overconfidence or belief in these effects that would benefit from robust experimental approaches. Studies conducted in controlled lab spaces should account for variables such as consumption methods, dosage, strain composition, and preference of genres of music as these factors may significantly influence individual auditory experiences. Additionally, being mindful of the setting in which cannabis and music studies are conducted is important considering participants’ levels of absorption and overall experiences may vary significantly. The use of observational studies could be used to capture these effects. Finally, investigating the effects of cannabis on hearing in specific populations, such as musicians, neurodivergent populations, or those with high levels of trait absorption in music could yield insightful results.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study highlights the profound yet idiosyncratic effects of cannabis on auditory experiences among experienced recreational cannabis users. Our convergent mixed‐methods approach allowed for a comprehensive exploration for both depth and breadth in understanding how cannabis influences auditory experiences. It provides a nuanced understanding of how cannabis alters cognitive processes, auditory perception, emotional responses, and embodied experiences, which align with key dimensions of music‐related reward and are theorized to interact with cannabis‐induced state absorption. Based on these findings, we propose a novel theoretical framework in which cannabis‐induced enhancement of state absorption functions as a central integrative mechanism for amplifying sensory sensitivity, emotional openness, and immersion. This absorption‐driven amplification may help explain why cannabis heightens music enjoyment and alters auditory salience across the four thematic domains identified. The framework provides a theoretical framework for future research on the interaction between cannabis, altered states of consciousness, and music perception in both recreational and therapeutic contexts.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Lena Darakjian: Conceptualization; methodology; validation; formal analysis; investigation; resources; data curation; writing—original draft; project administration. Harley Glassman: Validation; formal analysis; investigation; writing—review and editing. Chi Yhun Lo: Conceptualization; methodology; validation; formal analysis; writing—review and editing; supervision. Frank A. Russo: Conceptualization; methodology; validation; formal analysis; writing—review and editing; supervision.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/nyas.70010.

Supporting information

Supplementary FIle S1

Supplementary FIle S2

Supplementary FIle S3

Supplementary FIle S4

Darakjian, L. , Glassman, H. , Lo, C. Y. , & Russo, F. A. (2025). Exploring the interaction between cannabis and music. Ann NY Acad Sci., 1551, 140–158. 10.1111/nyas.70010

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.