Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 11;21(6):e0346421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346421

A study of the limitations of musical experience in Ancient Chinese Poetry – The case of the creation concert of Wei’s Music Score

Zushun Zhang 1, Panjie Xie 1,*, Jinsong Wang 2
Editor: Jie Zeng3
PMCID: PMC13258017  PMID: 42275383

Abstract

Ancient poetry, with profound artistic and literary value, holds a prominent position among China’s vocal works. Against the backdrop of vigorously promoting China’s outstanding traditional culture in the new era, it has witnessed a revival in interpretations both domestically and internationally. At present, ancient poetry faces dissemination challenges including constraints in performance environments and limitations in historical comprehension. These experiential restrictions impede recipients’ cultural identity, cultural confidence and cultural inheritance. This study adopts a literature review methodology, integrating the conceptual framework of leisure constraints and tourism research. It conducts systematic research on ancient poetry concerts to develop a scale measuring the limiting factors of ancient poetry experience. Using this scale, the study investigates and analyzes statistical results from three Weishi Yuepu (Wei Dynasty Music Score) creative concerts through the PLS-SEM method. Results indicate that constraints on ancient poetry experience exhibit a three-factor structure comprising personal constraints, interpersonal constraints, and structural constraints. This confirms the sequential pathway of ancient poetry experience: Preference→Participation; Personal Constraint→Preference; Structural Constraints→Participation. The study extends the application of the leisure restrictions model to traditional music, benefiting the domestic and international dissemination of China’s outstanding traditional culture while enhancing recipients’ understanding and interest in ancient poetry.

Introduction

Ancient poetry is a brilliant chapter in traditional culture, fusing literature and music and encapsulating ancestors’ noble sentiments. These works are preserved via ancient Chinese and guqin notation (such as shengquzhe, gongdiao pu, suzi pu, and gongche pu),including classical poems, ci lyrics, and qu songs [1]. At UNESCO headquarters, President Xi Jinping emphasized, “Let museum artifacts, heritage, and ancient texts come alive. Let Chinese and global civilizations offer spiritual guidance and motivation to humanity” [2]. Ancient poetry performances bring new life to texts through verse – history dialogue. The details of a successful ancient poetry concert are not randomly designed or isolated; instead, they form poetic presentations based on musical purpose and aesthetic principles.

Ancient poetry faces challenges in contemporary creative performance, including difficulties in comprehension, appreciation, transmission, and dissemination. Current academic research primarily focuses on collecting musical scores and cultivating performers, emphasizing “primary creation” and “secondary creation” while neglecting “tertiary creation”, hindering its widespread dissemination [3,4]. By exploring the experiential constraints of “tertiary creation” and integrating Leisure Constraints theory, this study proposes the following hypotheses: Personal Constraints→ Preference→Negative; Interpersonal Constraints→Participation→Negative; Structural Constraints→Participation→Negative; Interpersonal Constraints→Satisfaction→Negative; Structural Constraints→Satisfaction→Negative. Meanwhile, it puts forward supplementary hypotheses: Preference→Participation→Positive; Participation→Satisfaction→Positive. Using three original concert cases of ancient poetry set to music from the Wei Dynasty Score, combined with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis, this study aims to offer new perspectives for researchers on the perception, participation and satisfaction associated with “triple creation”. It seeks to explore innovative approaches to inheriting and promoting traditional poetry culture, arouse public interest in traditional culture, and enhance the prominence of traditional Chinese culture both at home and abroad.

Literature review

Current research on ‘Leisure restrictions’ both domestically and internationally has expanded beyond superficial observations to explore underlying mechanisms and diverse datasets. The scope of research subjects and content is broad, emphasizing the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, as well as theoretical and empirical methodologies. Early studies predominantly comprised conceptual review articles [5,6]. Crawford D W [7], Jackson E L, and others examined constraints within hierarchical relationships (intrapersonal constraints, interpersonal constraints, structural constraints).

Although constraint theory was proposed as early as the 1960s and 1970s, it was only recently that leisure restrictions theory was introduced into tourism research. Researchers have examined tourism constraints across diverse sectors, including nature tourism [8,9], museum tourism [10], event tourism [11,12], sports tourism [13–15]. In the arts sector, Zhang Honglei and Zhang Jie examined constraints on experiencing traditional Chinese cultural landscapes (calligraphy landscapes) [16]; Guo Yunjiao et al. studied leisure restrictions and activity benefits among low-income workers participating in artistic activities [17]. In the sports sector, Zhou Liangjun et al. applied the leisure constraints model in marathon participation behavior research, identifying structural constraints as the primary barrier to marathon participation [18]; Jin Qingyun focused on exploring the relationship between leisure restrictions and participation in recreational sports among urban residents in ethnic minority areas of Yanbian [19]. During extensive literature review, it was found that the majority of research subjects were female [20,21]. Research on adolescents [22–24] and older adults [25,26] is also prevalent. Additionally, studies on leisure restrictions encompassed case studies involving individuals with disabilities [27] and children [28]. Regarding leisure categories, most journals focused on questionnaire data analysis for sports, painting arts, and environmental arts. Research on music performance categories lacked systematic literature support, particularly concerning ancient poetry—a category of historical significance—which had insufficient case illustrations within the leisure restrictions field. Therefore, this study on the creation and performance of ancient poetry in Mouding employs leisure restrictions theory for in-depth analysis. It aims to propose innovative insights, explore participants’ cognitive attitudes toward ancient poetry, and thereby effectively enhance participant satisfaction and engagement. Based on the definition of leisure constraints, constraints on ancient poetry experiences can be defined as factors that inhibit continued engagement with ancient poetry. These factors prevent participation in ancient poetry activities, hinder the maintenance or increase of participation frequency, and may negatively impact the quality of ancient poetry experiences.

The scale development process rigorously followed Churchill’s (1979) paradigm, focusing on an initial assessment of content and face validity prior to formal data collection [29]. The initial item pool consisted of 22 items. Most of the items were adapted from established leisure constraints literature [15,30], and a small subset was newly developed specifically to capture the context of ancient Chinese poetry experiences [31,32]. To ensure robust content validity, an expert panel comprising three scholars specializing in traditional Chinese musicology and tourism management reviewed the initial pool.

Furthermore, to ensure the phrasing was clear and unambiguous, a preliminary small-scale pre-test was conducted with a convenience sample of 15 participants. This step focused purely on qualitative face validity and readability, with participants asked to provide verbal or written feedback on whether any items were confusing or difficult to understand. The explicit decision rules for item deletion at this stage were qualitative rather than statistical: items were flagged for removal if the expert panel deemed them semantically redundant or if pre-test respondents reported cognitive ambiguity. Based on this expert consensus and qualitative pre-test feedback, two items exhibiting weak contextual relevance were removed. No quantitative dimension reduction or statistical hypothesis testing was performed during this preliminary stage. The final 20-item scale was then deployed in the formal survey, where its internal consistency and convergent validity were subsequently confirmed via PLS-SEM analysis.

  • H1.1: Personal internal constraints negatively impact participants’ preferences.

  • H1.2: Interpersonal relationship constraints negatively affect participants’ engagement.

  • H1.3: Structural constraints negatively affect participants’ engagement.

  • H1.4: Interpersonal relationship constraints negatively impact participants’ satisfaction.

  • H1.5: Structural constraints negatively impact participants’ satisfaction.

Based on leisure restrictions theory and Walker, Halpenny, Spiers, and Deng’s (2011) [33] research, preferences may predict participation, and participants may experience greater satisfaction when actively engaged in an activity. Therefore, we can propose two additional hypotheses (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Restriction model of ancient poetry.

Fig 1

  • H2.1: Preferences are positively correlated with participation.

  • H2.2: Engagement is positively correlated with participant satisfaction.

Materials and methods

Research locations and methods

The experiment was conducted through three ancient poetry concerts hosted by the Center for the Inheritance and Innovation of Ancient Chinese Music and Poetry at Anhui University of Arts. One event, the closing ceremony of the Ancient Poetry Inheritance Workshop on the Wei Family Music Score, was organized by relevant departments and the university. It attracted over 100 participants from multiple provinces and 200 members of the public. Participants registered via email, and no personal – info screening was done until the 100 – person capacity was reached. Attendees were from diverse fields. The 200 concert – goers came after seeing announcements on the official account, and admission was free. The concert had guided listening to introduce classical poetry, and with tech elements, workshop participants recited songs corresponding to AI – processed poetry audio for a light particle display, creating an immersive multimedia experience. 277 paper questionnaires were distributed, 223 were returned and compiled for accuracy. All procedures in this study complied with institutional research guidelines and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical standards. Survey responses were collected anonymously via Qwenzhixing and paper questionnaires. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents and their guardians upon questionnaire distribution.

The center collaborated with the Anhui Museum and the Hefei Musicians Association to host two “Ancient Melodies, Modern Voices” ancient poetry concerts. Three hundred audience members were randomly selected via public account reservations to attend each live performance, and the process was open to the public without system – based selection. Through innovative arrangements, ancient poetry was integrated with historical and cultural elements. Each concert combined immersive experiences with the Anhui Provincial Museum’s “Capital of the World” exhibition and the 2024 Cultural Heritage Interpretation Showcase Final Selection. This explored the contemporary value of ancient poetry and showcased the charm of Ming Dynasty musical relics, including the “Wei’s Musical Score”.

Before the concert, audiences can join a guided tour of the museum’s “Capital of the World” exhibition with artifacts from the Ming Dynasty’s Hongwu period to explore Ming culture. Through this experience, attendees will appreciate the musical beauty of ancient poetry and understand its historical and cultural context, strengthening the connection to traditional heritage. The concert features six sets of ancient poetry songs selected and arranged by the Center for Inheritance and Innovation of Ancient Chinese Music and Poetry at Anhui Arts University, which are related to Anhui’s heritage. Each set’s cultural essence is presented through commentary, piano, and ethnic chamber music. After the concert, paper and electronic questionnaires were distributed to collect audience feedback for future events. Survey results showed strong audience approval for the history – music fusion, with many looking forward to similar experiences. To ensure comprehensive feedback from students and the elderly who may not be good at mobile scanning, a combined approach of paper and electronic questionnaires was used for future event planning.

Data acquisition and survey sample analysis

The questionnaire for this study primarily includes the following components: a measurement scale for limiting factors in ancient poetry experiences, a scale for measuring preferences, personal constraints, and satisfaction, as well as demographic characteristics and traits of participants. The scale for measuring constraints on ancient poetry experiences employed a 5-point Likert scale: 1 indicated strongly disagree (dissatisfied), 2 indicated disagree (dissatisfied), 3 indicated neutral, 4 indicated agree (satisfied), and 5 indicated strongly agree (satisfied). Data collection occurred during three ancient poetry concerts held between August and December 2024. To ensure sample openness and diversity, audiences for the latter two concerts were publicly recruited via the official WeChat public account using a first-come-first-served random reservation model. Each concert automatically closed registration upon reaching 300 attendees, eliminating human selection bias. To accommodate audience habits across age groups—particularly avoiding a digital divide for students and seniors—data collection employed a hybrid approach combining paper and electronic questionnaires. Across the three survey phases, 322 paper questionnaires were distributed with 281 returned, while 226 electronic questionnaires were simultaneously collected. After rigorous quality control of all returned data—including deduplication based on demographic information, response time screening, and exclusion of questionnaires with duplicate selections—411 valid questionnaires were obtained. The overall response rate and validity rate were 92.5% and 75%, respectively.

Furthermore, to ensure the adequacy of the sample size for PLS-SEM analysis [34], this study applied the widely recognized ‘10-times rule’ [35]. In the proposed structural model, the maximum number of structural paths pointing to a single endogenous construct is three (e.g., Participation is predicted by Preference, Interpersonal Constraints, and Structural Constraints). Consequently, the minimum required sample size under this guideline is 30. The final valid sample of 411 obtained in this study significantly exceeds this requirement, ensuring sufficient statistical power and robustness for model estimation.

Descriptive statistics of the sample

This study collected data related to demographic characteristics. Overall, the research obtained high-quality data through offline questionnaire surveys. The sample encompassed individuals of different genders, ages, income levels, occupations, educational backgrounds, and musical foundations, demonstrating strong representativeness and validity. The data is divided into six age groups: 56.91% are aged 18–45, 31.9% are under 18, and 0.48% are over 65. The gender ratio is 33.1% male and 66.9% female. By occupation, students and professionals constitute the largest groups, accounting for 43.31% and 24.09% respectively. Regarding educational attainment, 60.34% held bachelor’s degrees or higher, with 21.17% holding master’s degrees or higher. The rate of meeting basic musical proficiency standards was 71.78%, while science and engineering backgrounds accounted for 28.22%. The above data reveals overall trends and characteristics of the group in terms of age, gender, occupation, education, and musical skills: the occupational distribution exhibits knowledge-intensive features, and musical literacy shows significant correlations with educational background and professional field. This structural characteristic holds significant reference value for analyzing the reasons behind the leisure restrictions of ancient poetry (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Variable Category Frequency Proportion
Age Under 18 years of age 131 31.9
19-24 48 11.67
25-30 59 14.35
31-35 47 11.43
36-45 80 19.46
46-55 28 6.81
56-64 16 3.89
65 and over 2 0.48
Gender Male 136 33.1
Women 275 66.9
Occupation civil servant 66 16.06
Enterprise and institutional managers 46 11.19
Professional/Technical and Educational Personnel 99 24.09
Service Sales and Trade Personnel 5 1.22
Others 2 0.49
student 178 43.31
Retirees 15 3.65
Educational attainment Primary and below 28 6.81
junior high school 8 1.95
High school and secondary school 96 23.36
three-year college 31 7.54
undergraduate (adjective) 140 34.06
bachelor’s degree 87 21.17
PhD 21 5.11
Music Fundamentals Yes 295 71.78
No 116 28.22

Research methods

This study employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) for analysis, which aligns exceptionally well with the research characteristics for three primary reasons: (1) Research Objectives: A core objective of this study is to predict key endogenous variables (e.g., preferences, personal constraints, and satisfaction). PLS-SEM optimizes predictive capability by maximizing variance explained (R² value) for endogenous latent variables, directly serving this objective; (2) Sample Size and Model Complexity: With a sample size of N = 411 and a model incorporating multiple constructs, this study involves moderate complexity. PLS-SEM demonstrates robustness in handling such complex models when sample sizes are not extremely large; (3) Theoretical Development Stage: This research exhibits exploratory characteristics to a certain extent, and PLS-SEM is highly suitable for such theoretical development and analysis.

All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4.0 software [36]. Model estimation employed the partial least squares (PLS) algorithm with the path weighting scheme, converging upon reaching the 10−7 termination criterion. To rigorously evaluate the significance of the path coefficients and structural model metrics, we performed a Bootstrap resampling procedure. For full transparency and reproducibility, the exact estimation settings utilized were: 5,000 subsamples generated using the ‘without replacement’ method, with 95% bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals, and the ‘no sign changes’ option selected (Hair et al., 2019). All reported inferential statistics in this study are derived from these consistent settings.

Analysis of results

PLS-SEM analysis results

This study employed Smart-PLS 4 software for data analysis [37,38] and systematically evaluated the reliability and validity of measurement instruments based on the criteria established by Roldan and Cepeda (2017) and Hair et al. (2019) [39]. As shown in Table 2, factor loadings for all measurement items exceeded 0.7. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients (α > 0.6) and composite reliability (CR > 0.7) jointly confirmed the internal stability of variables. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) for all latent variables surpassed the 0.5 threshold, meeting the fundamental requirement for convergent validity. The VIF values among potential formative variables in each model were all below 5, ruling out multicollinearity issues in model estimation. Overall, the scale demonstrated sound reliability and validity, providing a reliable data foundation for subsequent structural model analysis (Fig 2).

Table 2. Convergent validity measures.

Variable Test items Factor Load VIF Cronbach’s a CR AVE
Personal limit 0.798 0.881 0.711
You don’t like to listen to concerts about old poems, you find them boring. 0.805 1.383
Understanding the poetic context of Chinese Ancient Poetry can be difficult for you 0.880 2.370
Understanding the musical melody of ancient poems can be difficult for you. 0.844 2.210
Interpersonal limitations 0.737 0.85 0.655
No one in your neighborhood is interested in Ancient Score Poetry Music 0.832 1.499
There is no one to guide you in understanding and singing the ancient poems. 0.843 1.557
Unaccompanied Ancient Poetry Concerts limits the number of times you can watch them. 0.749 1.372
Structural limitations 0.832 0.888 0.664
You are less likely to encounter things in your life that are related to the music of ancient sheet music and poetry 0.798 1.952
Working and living conditions limit your chances of enjoying a concert of ancient poems and lyrics 0.841 2.180
You don’t have a lot of time to enjoy concerts or lectures on ancient music and poetry 0.867 1.941
There is not enough information in the society to guide you to enjoy the music of old scores and poems. 0.750 1.551
The distance between concerts, salons, and other events limits your participation. 0.771 0.896 0.812
Preferences 0.921 1.647
In your daily life, you look out for things with ancient poems (e.g., lectures, concerts, salons, etc.) 0.880 1.647
You will be on the lookout for things with ancient poems during your travels (e.g., museum visits, street culture, flash mobs, etc.). 0.640 0.807 0.582
Participate 0.715 1.198
0.760 1.276
Your level of knowledge of Chinese Ancient Poetry 0.812 1.330
Your average number of concerts per year 0.907 0.932 0.776
The average number of times you listen to classical music concerts per year 0.914 3.395
Satisfaction 0.918 3.490
Would you like to see a concert of ancient scores and poems about Wei’s Music Score again? 0.912 2.746
Would you like to recommend “Wei’s Music Score” Ancient Score Poetry Concert to your friends and family? 0.771 2.011
Would you like to see a similar concert of ancient music again in the future? 0.798 0.881 0.711
Your review of the Wei’s Music Score Concert for the Creation of Ancient Score and Poetry 0.805 1.383

Note: CR is the combined reliability; AVE is the variance,VIF is the covariance statistic.

Fig 2. Structural model of ancient poetry.

Fig 2

According to the Fornell-Larcker criteria, the discriminant validity of each construct—that is, whether constructs are sufficiently distinct—is determined by comparing the square root of each construct’s average variance extracted (AVE) with its correlations to other constructs. If a construct’s square root of AVE exceeds its correlations with other constructs, it satisfies discriminant validity. In summary, all constructs meet the Fornell-Larcker criteria, indicating they possess good discriminant validity (Table 3).

Table 3. Distinctive validity of variables (Fornell-Larcker Standard).

Personal limit Interpersonal limitations Preferences Participate Satisfaction Structural limitations
Personal limit 0.798 0.881 0.711
Interpersonal limitations 0.805 1.383 0.805
Preferences 0.880 2.370 0.880
Participate 0.844 2.210 0.844
Satisfaction 0.737 0.85 0.655
Structural limitations 0.832 1.499 0.832

Discriminant validity was assessed using the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT), a modern and rigorous standard for evaluating construct discrimination. Results are presented in Table 4. All construct pairs yielded HTMT values below the conservative threshold of 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015), indicating that the measurement model possesses good discriminant validity.

Table 4. HTMT evaluation.

Project Personal constraints Interpersonal constraints preference Participate Satisfaction Structural constraints
Personal constraints
Interpersonal constraints 0.680
preference 0.313 0.361
Participate 0.279 0.511 0.544
Satisfaction 0.298 0.208 0.401 0.180
Structural constraints 0.531 0.890 0.306 0.514 0.190

To examine the discriminant validity of the measurement model, this study conducted cross-loadings analysis. As shown in Table 5, all measurement items exhibited higher loadings on their intended target constructs than on any other non-target constructs (i.e., cross-loadings), providing support for discriminant validity.

Table 5. Cross-load matrix.

Project Personal constraints Interpersonal constraints Preference Participate Satisfaction Structural constraints average value standard deviation
interest 0.805 0.371 −0.231 −0.109 −0.241 0.321 1.976 0.943
poems 0.88 0.453 −0.209 −0.186 −0.187 0.372 2.139 0.963
melodic 0.844 0.488 −0.184 −0.206 −0.212 0.401 2.158 0.968
work 0.372 0.53 −0.213 −0.231 −0.193 0.798 2.764 1.188
time 0.383 0.557 −0.241 −0.299 −0.148 0.841 2.783 1.154
information 0.356 0.679 −0.273 −0.429 −0.111 0.867 3.049 1.17
spot 0.294 0.498 −0.081 −0.273 −0.123 0.75 2.900 1.093
companions −0.138 −0.247 0.246 0.715 0.124 −0.297 2.384 1.052
tuition −0.186 −0.217 0.328 0.76 0.144 −0.236 3.068 1.167
accompany −0.124 −0.348 0.31 0.812 0.043 −0.357 2.596 1.189
daily focus −0.225 −0.131 0.194 −0.03 0.771 −0.077 3.869 1.378
travel matters −0.237 −0.265 0.921 0.386 0.301 −0.253 4.212 1.378
realize −0.211 −0.221 0.88 0.305 0.329 −0.205 2.676 0.891
concerts 0.502 0.832 −0.198 −0.29 −0.193 0.516 2.759 1.041
ancient records 0.322 0.843 −0.229 −0.338 −0.086 0.63 1.903 0.912
overall rating 0.432 0.749 −0.239 −0.233 −0.136 0.57 4.328 0.775
watch again −0.209 −0.145 0.323 0.141 0.914 −0.134 4.304 0.827
friend −0.202 −0.157 0.341 0.107 0.918 −0.155 4.294 0.788
wish −0.266 −0.164 0.322 0.166 0.912 −0.196 4.350 0.754

Path analysis results indicate (see Table 6) that perceived personal constraints significantly negatively predict individuals’ preferences when engaging in ancient Chinese poetry experiences (path coefficient = −0.249, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that when individuals face greater limitations due to time, energy, or other subjective factors, their interest and preference for ancient poetry experiences significantly diminish. Furthermore, preferences positively and highly significantly predict participation behavior(path coefficient = 0.296, p < 0.001). That is, the greater an individual’s interest in ancient poetry experiences, the higher the likelihood of their actual participation. This finding underscores the pivotal role of interest as a driving force in cultural experience behaviors. Simultaneously, structural constraints significantly negatively predict personal constraints.(path coefficient = −0.237, p < 0.001). This indicates that when external conditions—such as accessibility of activity resources, social support, or cultural environment—create high entry barriers, individuals’ willingness to engage in classical poetry experiences is suppressed. Collectively, both personal and structural constraints subtly yet substantially predict individual preferences and participation willingness.Future efforts to promote and disseminate ancient poetry experiences should focus on reducing these subjective and objective barriers to enhance interest levels.

Table 6. Analysis of model path effect test.

Effects of endogenous variables Path coefficient 95% CI T-value P values Support for assumptions
Personal limit - > Preferences −0.249 [−0.355, −0.156] 4.842 0.000 be tenable
Interpersonal limitations - > Participate −0.111 [−0.240, 0.016] 1.682 0.093 untenable
Interpersonal limitations - > Satisfaction −0.111 [−0.240, 0.016] 1.682 0.093 untenable
Preferences - > Participate 0.296 [0.202, 0.389] 6.249 0.000 be tenable
Participate - > Satisfaction 0.296 [0.202, 0.389] 6.249 0.000 untenable
Structural limitations - > Participate −0.237 [−0.354, −0.121] 4.030 0.000 be tenable
Structural limitations - > Satisfaction −0.237 [−0.354, −0.121] 4.030 0.000 untenable

In the Partial Least Squares Path Model (SEM-PLS), the R-squared (R²) value serves as a crucial indicator for measuring the extent to which the model explains the variance in the dependent variable. The R² value ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater explanatory power of the model. Cohen (1988) [40] defined the boundaries for small effect R² = 0.02, medium effect R² = 0.13, and large effect R² = 0.26. The R² values for personal constraints, satisfaction, and preference all exceed 0.02, indicating that the model possesses partial explanatory power (see Table 7).

Table 7. Variance explained.

R² Adjusted R2
Participate 0.247 0.242
Satisfaction 0.038 0.031
Preferences 0.062 0.060

Nevertheless, we recognize that the R² values for preference (0.062) and satisfaction (0.038) are relatively low, which suggests that the present model only explains a limited proportion of variance in these two constructs. While our current interpretation is reasonable, such modest explanatory power indicates that some important factors may not have been incorporated into the analytical framework. Accordingly, we acknowledge that potential omitted variables—such as cultural capital and prior poetry exposure—may also exert substantial influences on individuals’ preference and satisfaction, and could account for the remaining unexplained variance. These limitations are duly noted and will be further examined and addressed in future in-depth research.

Discussion

The above data indicate that personal and structural constraints are relatively significantly correlated with preferences, while interpersonal constraints have a less pronounced effect. Preferences are positively correlated with participation, but the direct impact of participation on satisfaction is relatively weak. This aligns with findings in the calligraphy landscape study regarding how intrapersonal factors correlate with preferences and how preferences affect participation [41]. This suggests that when enhancing participation and satisfaction, we should prioritize individual and structural factors. Meanwhile, don’t overlook the mediating role of preferences, as their facilitative effect on participation is significant. Further analysis shows that personal and structural constraints have significant negative effects, indicating they hinder participation and satisfaction improvement. Moreover, the positive impact of preference on participation emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivation. Stimulating this motivation can help overcome constraints and increase engagement. At the same time, optimizing personal constraints for ancient poetry performances can improve both participation and satisfaction. As a complex psychological construct shaped by enduring personal factors, satisfaction and preferences inherently differ in ways that cannot be fully captured or predicted by single external situational factors (e.g., the constraints in this model) Nevertheless, the significant path relationships identified in the model reveal stable intrinsic connections among these variables. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the present study and identify it as a direction for future in-depth research.

Addressing personal constraints to enhance preference values

“Understanding the poetic imagery of ancient poetry is difficult for you” has a factor loading of 0.880 in Personal constraints, indicating that the difficulty of comprehending ancient poetic imagery is a primary factor influencing preference. “Understanding the musical melody of ancient poetry is difficult for you” has a factor loading of 0.844 in Personal constraints, showing that the difficulty of grasping musical melodies also significantly impacts preference. This may stem from ancient poetry often embodying rich historical and cultural connotations, involving essential knowledge of seasonal cycles, geography, and history. It comprises structured language deviating from everyday usage, with poetic genres imposing unique combinatorial constraints on linguistic elements, demanding considerable literary and artistic cultivation from the recipient [42]. To address this, detailed concert optimization strategies can be provided to reduce comprehension difficulty, thereby enhancing user preference for classical poetry.

Optimizing concert pathways.

The construction of field spaces is closely related to concert content and form. Bourdieu defines fields as networks of objective relations. Most contemporary poetry performance venues are unidirectional theater – concert halls with physical distance between stages and audience seating, creating hierarchical divisions. Sociologist Christopher Small notes that modern concert halls assume musical performance is a one – way transmission, with the composer’s intent conveyed to the audience via the performer [43]. This unidirectional model limits audience-performer interaction, reducing audience experience. Optimizing field design by shortening distance and increasing interactivity is crucial for better performance. Immersive environments enhance engagement and satisfaction. For example, performers use body language and verbs to add creativity. Costumes symbolize performance, compensating for limited eye contact. Guided listening uses vivid language to help audiences understand poetry. By reimagining landscapes, audiences resonate with ancient rhythms, internalizing culture and appreciating classical verse.

Online promotion channels.

Through the official account “Ancient Melodies, Modern Voices,” we provide listeners with a rich and diverse array of online music resources. The account regularly publishes knowledge about ancient poetry, case studies, and event previews to enhance public awareness and interest in classical verse. Simultaneously, collaborations with museums, musicians’ associations, television stations, music radio stations, and other government media outlets further stimulate public enthusiasm for traditional culture. Leveraging interactive features like comments and polls, we gather user feedback and needs to continuously refine promotional content, ensuring it aligns with actual user demands. ntegrating media promotion with offline events creates a synergistic online-offline campaign model that further strengthens the global reach and resonance of ancient poetry. Additionally, utilizing social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin, we release short videos and livestreams to showcase the charm of ancient poetry and attract younger audiences. Regularly hosting online concerts and poetry recitals featuring renowned artists enhances interactivity and boosts user engagement. Data analysis enables precise targeting of audiences and the development of personalized promotion strategies to maximize dissemination effectiveness. Through multi-channel coordination, ancient poetry gradually integrates into everyday life, revitalizing this artistic tradition with renewed vitality in the modern era.

Leveraging preference orientation to stimulate engagement

Individuals who report a preference for engaging with ancient poetry–related content (e.g., lectures, concerts, salons) in daily life are significantly more likely to actively participate in poetry-related activities. This stems from the observation that ancient poetry already possesses a dedicated following from universities, museums, and the arts sector during event organization, with some even engaged in poetry research. Multiple studies have highlighted poetry’s impact on both supply and demand sides of China’s tourism industry. Most of these studies suggest that tourists tend to visit places associated with poetry [44–49]. Furthermore, since Chinese tourists generally have a strong familiarity with poetry, it is often incorporated into tour site narrations.Future efforts should focus on identifying the interests of this demographic and designing more interactive, engaging online and offline activities, such as ancient poetry word-filling competitions and poetry creation sharing sessions. This will help solidify the foundation of poetry enthusiasts and foster a rich cultural tourism atmosphere.

Optimizing personal constraints to enhance participation

Among personal constraints, factors such as “insufficient societal guidance on appreciating ancient poetry music” and “limited time for attending ancient poetry music concerts or lectures” are significantly correlated with individuals’ engagement in ancient poetry music activities. This may stem from the scarcity of relevant music events and their monotonous formats, which limit their societal impact. Limited hosting at societal and university levels restricts the dissemination of ancient poetry music, affecting public recognition of poetry culture. The lack of activities also hinders talent cultivation in poetry music, lacking practical platforms and performance opportunities, leading to a vicious cycle. To improve this, more poetry music events should be organized, content formats enriched, and dissemination channels broadened.

For instance, cultural events can be organized to strengthen the dissemination and resonance of ancient poetry, leveraging government media for expanded publicity and increased attention. Integrating cultural and tourism resources to develop ancient poetry-themed travel routes can create immersive cultural experiences, enhancing visitors’ cultural enrichment. By harnessing community effects to broaden the reach of poetic art, a robust transmission network can be established. This will revitalize poetic art in modern society, fostering a virtuous cycle of cultural inheritance.

Conclusions and research limitations

Conclusions

This study introduces the theory of leisure constraints and conducts an empirical analysis to systematically examine the categories and structure of restrictions in ancient poetry experiences.It also analyzes the impact of demographic and sociological characteristics on restrictions in poetry landscape experiences. Findings reveal that both personal and structural constraints significantly impact participation and satisfaction levels. Further research indicates that specific measures to optimize these constraints include: offering customized musical experiences to heighten audience engagement; enhancing interactive features; incorporating audience feedback to continuously refine creative and performance plans; and fostering an atmosphere of active participation. These integrated strategies not only mitigate the negative effects of personal and structural constraints but also substantially boost user enthusiasm and satisfaction. Practice demonstrates that integrating personalized strategies with system optimization is the key pathway to enhancing user experience. Additionally, the study finds that strengthening recipients’ sense of belonging and offering diverse interactive opportunities effectively promotes communication and mutual assistance. This further stimulates personal constraints, forming a virtuous cycle of interaction that significantly elevates the overall experiential impact.

Research limitations and future prospects

A limitation of this study is its sampling strategy. The sample was from specific concert attendees, potentially unrepresentative of the public. Also, self – selection bias among interested audiences may overestimate variable impacts. Future research should use more diverse sampling (e.g., non – audience at community centers or online) to improve findings’ generalizability. Moreover, the cross – sectional nature and lack of a control group make it hard to establish causal relationships. For example, the correlation between ‘immersive experience’ and ‘cultural identity’ doesn’t mean causation. Future studies could use experimental designs, comparing pre – and post – tests between a control (e.g., standard lecture participants) and an experimental group (poetry music activity participants) to test causal effects.

A notable methodological limitation of this study involves the operationalization of the ‘Participation’ construct. The measurement items assessed general attendance at classical and traditional music concerts (e.g., average number of classical concerts attended per year) rather than strictly ‘ancient poetry music concerts.’ Because dedicated ancient poetry concerts (such as Wei’s Music Score performances) represent an extremely rare and highly specialized niche, measuring specific attendance would have likely resulted in a severe statistical floor effect with near-zero variance. Consequently, general classical music participation was utilized as a necessary behavioral proxy. While this approach was essential to ensure sufficient data variance for structural equation modeling.

The Future Center will integrate ancient poetry with modern life, develop communication channels, collaborate with cultural tourism partners for exploration and activities, use digital platforms for education, combine VR and AR for immersive experiences, and expand globally via cross – industry collaborations to enhance Chinese culture’s international status. Through modern technology and social media, we’ll broaden communication, enhance interactivity, and create integrated online – offline experiences. Future plans include staging musical theater to build “Ming Music” and “Li Bai” brands, support Anhui’s culture, promote Chinese stories, and guide youth to appreciate ancient poetry and music, fostering values and cultural confidence. From a historical, cultural, and contemporary perspective, we’ll endow ancient poetry with resonance, horizons, and relevance. This aims to revitalize ancient Chinese poetry in the new era, making it popular in China and globally understood, and establishing it as an Eastern classic in art history.

Supporting information

S1 File. Original data english.

(XLSX)

pone.0346421.s001.xlsx (72.5KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Major Art Project of the National Social Science Fund of China, Research on Ancient Scores of Traditional Chinese Music (No. 22ZD13) awarded to ZZ, Key Research Project for Innovation and Development of Social Sciences in Anhui Province, Collation and Research on the Poetry Collections of Li Tianfu and Li Fuqing (No. 2023CX12) awarded to PX, and 2025 Young Artist Talent Cultivation Project of Anhui University of the Arts (No. AYQNYSJ202503) awarded to PX. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Yang S. Songs and poetry of emperor Wu of Han Dynasty and the music system of Han Yuefu. Fudan J (Soc Sci Ed). 2024;66(04):88–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hao Q. Significant innovative conclusions in general secretary Xi Jinping’s important discourse on the protection and inheritance of cultural heritage. China’s Intangible Cult Herit. 2025;(02):6–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang Z, Xie P. A new probe into communication path of Hakka folk songs in perspective of third creation. J Longyan Univ. 2021;39(04):36–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Xie P, Zhang Z. Modern performance of ancient poetry and prose with tablatures from perspective of cultural inheritance: a case study of Jianghuai tide and Qingge concert. J Longyan Univ. 2025;43(01):43–9. doi: 10.16813/j.cnki.cn35-1286/g4.2021.04.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jackson EL. Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-first century? J Leis Res. 2000;32(1):62–8. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2000.11949887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nadirova A, Jackson EL. Alternative criterion variables against which to assess the impacts of constraints to leisure. J Leis Res. 2000;32(4):396–405. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2000.11949923 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Crawford DW, Jackson EL, Godbey G. A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leis Sci. 1991;13(4):309–20. doi: 10.1080/01490409109513147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Daniels MJ, Drogin Rodgers EB, Wiggins BP. “Travel Tales”: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tour Manage. 2005;26(6):919–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nyaupane GP, Andereck KL. Understanding travel constraints: application and extension of a leisure constraints model. J Travel Res. 2007;46(4):433–9. doi: 10.1177/0047287507308325 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10。.Tian S, Crompton JL, Witt PA. Integrating constraints and benefits to identify responsive target markets for museum attractions. J Travel Res. 1996;35(2):34–45. doi: 10.1177/004728759603500207 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Funk DC, Alexandris K, Ping Y. To go or stay home and watch: exploring the balance between motives and perceived constraints for major events: a case study of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. J Tour Res. 2008;11(1):41–53. doi: 10.1002/jtr.682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kim N-S, Chalip L. Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest, and constraints. Tour Manage. 2004;25(6):695–707. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tao W, Zhang S. Local residents’ sporting-event-related recreational behaviors: A case study on MGP on the basis of leisure constraints theory. Tour Tribune. 2016;31(06):50–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhou W, Tian H, Qiu Y. Qualitative research on serious leisure constraints negotiation strategies of marathon runners. J Wuhan Inst Phys Educ. 2017;51(11):80–4. doi: 10.15930/j.cnki.wtxb.2017.11.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gilbert D, Hudson S. Tourism demand constraints: a skiing participation. Ann Tour Res. 2000;27(4):906–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhang HL, Zhang J. Research on the limiting factors of traditional Chinese cultural landscape experience: a case study of calligraphy landscapes. Tour Tribune. 2012;27(7):28–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guo YJ, He YY, Luo QJ. From passive absence to active participation: A study on leisure constraint negotiation and activity benefits of underprivileged workers’ engagement in artistic activities. Tour Tribune. 2023;38(5):137–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhou LJ, Chen XY, Ren ZB, Xu MZ, Feng ZY. Construction of a three-order model for the Chinese marathon participation motivation scale. J Tianjin Univ Sport. 2020;35(4):410–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jin QY. An exploration of the relationship between leisure constraints and participation in leisure sports among urban residents in ethnic minority areas of Yanbian. J Nanjing Sport Inst (Soc Sci Ed). 2014;28(4):65–72, 98. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xie T, Lu N, Zhang N. The relationship between body anxiety and physical exercise in female college students: the mediating role of leisure restrictions. J Shangrao Normal Univ. 2023;43(06):86–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhou W, Qiu Y, Tian H, Xu J. Women runners in China: constraints negotiation process of serious leisure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):214. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Canally C, Timothy DJ. Perceived constraints to travel across the US‐Mexico border among American university students. J Tour Res. 2007;9(6):423–37. doi: 10.1002/jtr.614 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wan T, Zhou Y, Li S, Zhu H. Research on college students’ travelling limits and the strategy from the the constraints theory. J Dalian Univ. 2023;44(06):89–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chen S-F, Lou S-J, Ma S-M. Role of positive emotions in the constraint process: the case of Taiwanese college students. Leis Stud. 2018;37(5):574–88. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2018.1499798 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fleischer A, Pizam A. Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Ann Tour Res. 2002;29(1):106–23. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(01)00026-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wu HY, Lin HQ. Analysis of built environment factors affecting the participation of middle-aged and elderly people in recreational physical activities in Guangzhou City. Sports Vision. 2024;(16):23–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Darcy S. Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tour Manage. 2010;31(6):816–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chick G, Roberts JM. Leisure and antileisure in game play. Leisure Sci. 1989;11(2):73–84. doi: 10.1080/01490408909512208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Churchill Jr GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res. 1979;16(1):64. doi: 10.2307/3150876 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hung K, Petrick JF. Developing a measurement scale for constraints to cruising. Ann Tour Res. 2010;37(1):206–28. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yu X, Xu H. Ancient poetry in contemporary Chinese tourism. Tour Manage. 2016;54:393–403. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.John L, Tak-sum W. Glimpses of ancient China from classical Chinese poems. In: Proceedings of COLING 2012. 2012. pp. 621–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Walker GJ, Halpenny E, Spiers A, Deng J. A prospective panel study of Chinese-Canadian immigrants’ leisure participation and leisure satisfaction. Leis Sci. 2011;33(5):349–65. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2011.606776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol Stud. 1995;2(2):285–309. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52. doi: 10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In: Homburg C, Klarmann M, Vomberg A, editors. Handbook of Market Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 587–632. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J. SmartPLS4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ringle J, C M, Becker S. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. Eur J Mark. 2019;53(4):566–84. doi: 10.1108/ejm-10-2018-0665 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge; 1988. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang H, Zhang J, Cheng S, Lu S, Shi C. Role of constraints in Chinese calligraphic landscape experience: An extension of a leisure constraints model. Tour Manage. 2012;33(6):1398–407. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Egan CH. A critical study of the origins of ‘Chüeh-chǔ’ poetry. Asia Major. 1993;6:83–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Small C. Musicking. Wesleyan University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Li FMS. Chinese common knowledge, tourism, and natural landscape: Gazing on “Bie you tian di” e “an altogether different world”. Australia: Murdoch University; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Packer J, Ballantyne R, Hughes K. Chinese and Australian tourists’ attitudes to nature, animals and environmental issues: Implications for the design of nature-based tourism experiences. Tour Manage. 2014;44:101–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Peterson YY. The Chinese landscape as a tourist attraction: images and reality. In: Lew AA, Yu L, editors. Tourism in China. Geographical, political and economic perspectives. Boulder: Westview Press; 1995. pp. 141–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sofield THB, Li FMS. Tourism development and cultural policies in China. Ann Tour Res. 1998;25(2):362–92. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(97)00092-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Xu H, Cui Q, Ballantyne R, Packer J. Effective environmental interpretation at Chinese natural attractions: the need for an aesthetic approach. J Sustain Tour. 2013;21(1):117–33. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2012.681787 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Xu H, Cui Q, Sofield T, Li FMS. Attaining harmony: understanding the relationship between ecotourism and protected areas in China. J Sustain Tour. 2014;22(8):1131–50. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2014.902064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jie Zeng

24 Sep 2025

-->PONE-D-25-36046-->-->A Study of the Limitations of Musical Experience in Ancient Chinese Poetry—The Case of the Creation Concert of Wei's Music Score-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.-->-->

The reviewers and I acknowledge the merit of your work. However, we have decided that your manuscript requires major revisions before it can be accepted for publication. The reviewers have provided constructive feedback, primarily concerning the methodology, language, and scientific rigor of the study. I concur with their suggestions.

Therefore, I invite you to prepare and submit a revised version of your manuscript. Please address all the reviewers' comments in detail, and include a point-by-point response to their critiques in your cover letter.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jie Zeng, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Anhui Provincial Department of Education Cultivation Program for Excellent and Top-notch Talents in Colleges and Universities (Key Project of Support Program for Excellent Young Talents in Colleges and Universities) (Number:gxyqZD2022087);Anhui Provincial Department of Education 2023 Annual College Ancient Book Arrangement Research Project (Number:2023AHGJ04);Anhui College of the Arts “Classroom Excellence” Project: Ancient Genealogy Poetry Creation and Performance Planning (Number:2025xjzykt11).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

Please respond by return e-mail with an amended manuscript. We can upload this to your submission on your behalf.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, please either instruct us to remove the figure or supply a replacement figure by return e-mail for which you hold the relevant copyright permissions and subject consents. In some cases, you may need to specify in the text that the image used in the figure is not the original image used in the study, but a similar image used for illustrative purposes only. We can make any changes on your behalf.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: “The manuscript employs the ‘leisure constraints/constraints–negotiation’ framework to examine constraints on the experience of ancient-score poetry, combining audience surveys from three ‘Wei’s Scores’ concerts and analyzing the data with PLS-SEM. The topic is innovative and relevant to cultural heritage; the materials are novel; and preliminary results suggest pathways through which intrapersonal and structural constraints affect preference and participation, offering some academic and practical value. However, there is considerable room for improvement in research design transparency, scale development and validation, statistical reporting standards, language and scholarly expression, and compliance with ethics and data sharing. A major revision is recommended before re-review.

1. Insufficient standardization and testability of research questions and hypotheses

The research hypotheses are listed at the end of Section 2 but are inconsistent with the model annotations, and it is not stated whether ‘negotiation’ was measured, indicating a theory–measurement inconsistency (lines 117–136, 137–138). Recommendation: Consolidate testable hypotheses at the end of the Introduction or the start of Methods, ensure one-to-one correspondence with the paths in Figure 1, and standardize terminology boundaries (preference/participation/satisfaction and the three types of constraints).

2. Scale development and psychometric evidence need to be completed and standardized The origins of the scales and the item development process are not described. For example, there is no information on the item pool, proportions of adapted vs. self-developed items, expert review, pilot testing, or item screening criteria (lines 189–197). The measurement model reporting is incomplete. The paper provides only some loadings, α, CR, AVE, and VIF. Please add the full item lists for each latent construct, means/variances of standardized loadings, 95% CIs for α/CR/AVE, HTMT and the cross-loading matrix; explain any item deletions and the reasons (lines 226–239, 240–247, and the pages containing Tables 2 and 3, lines 229–246). Construct operationalization shows domain drift. Participation includes items like “number of classical concerts,” which are not fully domain-consistent with “participation in ancient-score poetry”; see Table 2 items “Your average number of concerts per year” and “The average number of times you listen to classical music concerts per year.” Scale language quality issues. There is substantial Chinglish and unnatural phrasing that affects comprehension and the interval-scale assumption, appearing throughout the manuscript, notably in the abstract and the items in Table 2 (lines 7–29, 229–246).

3. Sampling/procedure transparency and representativeness Sampling and procedures are unclear. The sources of audiences for the three concerts, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment channels, online/offline questionnaire ratio, and quality control (de-duplication, response time, attention checks) are not specified (lines 140–161, 164–187, 194–201). Remove Figure 2; it does not support the study. Sample representativeness issues. Military personnel account for 44.4%, indicating significant bias; the 300 general-public respondents recruited via the official WeChat account constitute a self-selected sample. The boundaries of external validity should be honestly stated and discussed (lines 164–175, 209–223, and p. 24, lines 173–187).

4. PLS-SEM analysis and reporting standards The rationale for choosing PLS is insufficient. Justify based on sample size, model complexity, and a prediction-oriented goal, and specify software version, algorithm, number of bootstrap resamples, and type of confidence interval (lines 226–236). Please add that SmartPLS 4 was used, and provide the missing details. Structural model quality indicators are incomplete. Q², f², PLSpredict, and VIFs for endogenous independent variables are missing; interpreting R² > 0.02 as “high” is inappropriate—especially for Satisfaction where R² = 0.038, which calls for discussion of measurement or theoretical reasons (lines 267–273, Table 4). Path coefficients are inconsistent. In the figure, Structural → Participate is −0.086, while Table 5 reports −0.28. Unify these based on bootstrap statistics; Figure 3 still contains residual phrases like “Assuming it’s true/Assumptions are not valid” (lines 237–239; Table 5; lines 274–276; pp. 20–21).

5. Causal and generalization claims in Results/Discussion Causal caution is insufficient. Given a convenience sample and no control design, the paths represent covariation only; avoid causal and policy-oriented extrapolations. The abstract, discussion, and conclusion contain multiple overstated claims (lines 7–27, 275–291, 443–472, 480–497). Mechanisms and mediation. The Participation → Satisfaction path is non-significant, while Preference → Participation is significant. Test the indirect effect or moderation of Preference, and acknowledge that the unmeasured ‘negotiation’ dimension represents a theory–measurement gap (lines 254–266, 274–276).

6. Writing and scholarly expression There is Chinglish and mixed terminology in the title, abstract, and throughout (e.g., “Leisure Restricted Class Modeling,” “ancient genealogy/ancient spectrum”); professional English editing and terminological unification are recommended (short title and keywords on p. 1; lines 7–29; items in lines 189–201). Avoid promotional statements beyond the study’s scope (e.g., “music therapy”); trim grand narratives and slogan-like passages, and focus on evidence-supported claims (lines 335–353, 488–497). The references contain duplicates, author–year inconsistencies, and incomplete translation/journal details. Standardize formatting per the journal’s English style and deduplicate (lines 548–551, 570–573, 600–607, 612–616).”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript explores the integration of ancient Chinese poetry with musical performance and immersive art activities—an innovative and culturally meaningful endeavor. Collaborations with museums, along with the use of guided listening sessions, workshops, and modern technology, enhance the value of the study. A reasonable number of valid survey responses were collected, and the application of Smart- PLS 4 to assess reliability and validity represents a solid analytical approach.

However, several methodological limitations should be noted. The sampling strategy, which relied exclusively on concert attendees, may compromise representativeness and introduce self-selection bias. Although factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were reported, the threshold of α > 0.6 is considered lenient, and evidence for discriminant validity remains insufficient. More rigorous statistical reporting—including hypothesis testing and effect sizes—would strengthen the analysis. The absence of a control group also limits the ability to make causal inferences. Furthermore, in accordance with PLOS data policy, it is unclear whether the complete raw data have been made publicly available; this should be explicitly addressed.

The manuscript is clearly written and generally in acceptable English, though some sections could benefit from improved conciseness and clarity. Overall, the study shows promise, but revisions focusing on methodological rigor, statistical depth, and data transparency would enhance its scholarly contribution.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-36046.pdf

pone.0346421.s002.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Jun 11;21(6):e0346421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346421.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Jan 2026

Dear editor:

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments provided by the reviewers. All modifications made in the manuscript are highlighted in blue.

Journal Requirements:

1.Editorial comments:Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the style requirements of PLOS ONE, including the requirements for file naming.

Our response:We are grateful for the valuable comments from the reviewers. We have revised the article format again in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

2.Editorial comments:Please describe the role of the funder in the research. If the funder had no role, state: “The funder had no role in the research design, data collection and analysis, publication decisions, or manuscript preparation.”

Our response:Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. We have re-stated the role of the funder. Anhui Provincial Department of Education Cultivation Program for Excellent and Top-notch Talents in Colleges and Universities (Key Project of Support Program for Excellent Young Talents in Colleges and Universities) (Number:gxyqZD2022087);Anhui Provincial Department of Education 2023 Annual College Ancient Book Arrangement Research Project (Number:2023AHGJ04);Anhui College of the Arts “Classroom Excellence” Project: Ancient Genealogy Poetry Creation and Performance Planning (Number:2025xjzykt11).

(ZS served as the principal investigator for project gxyqZD2022087 and the second contributor for project 2023AHGJ04, while PJ was the principal investigator for project 2025xjzykt11. Both made significant contributions to research design, data collection, and analysis.)

3. Editorial comments :We note that your data availability statement currently reads: All relevant data are included in the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Our response:Please confirm at this time whether your submission contains all the raw data necessary to replicate your research findings. Authors must share the “minimal dataset” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal dataset as including all data required to replicate every research finding reported in the article, along with associated metadata and methods.

4. Editorial comments:PLOS requires that manuscripts submitted after December 6, 2016, provide the corresponding author's ORCID iD in Editorial Manager.

Our response:Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. We have updated the ORCID ID of the corresponding author again.

5.Editorial comments:Please include your complete ethics statement in the “Methods” section of your manuscript. In your statement, include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee that approved or waived your research, and whether you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your research, please also include this information in your statement.

Our response:We appreciate the reviewers' valuable feedback and have added the ethics committee statement and informed consent form to the Methods section.

6.Editorial comments:We note that Figure 2 includes images of participants…….

Our response:We appreciate the reviewers' comments. All images used in this study have been obtained with participants' consent and informed consent forms have been signed. Furthermore, our questionnaire does not involve any privacy concerns of the respondents. All procedures in this study comply with Anhui University's research guidelines and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical standards. Survey responses will be collected anonymously via Questionnaire Star and paper questionnaires. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their guardians upon distribution of the questionnaires.

7.Editorial comments:Please add the title of the supporting information file at the end of your manuscript and update any text citations accordingly. For more information, please refer to our Supporting Information Guidelines:

Our response:We have resubmitted the supporting documentation in response to the reviewers' comments.

8.Editorial comments: If a reviewer's comments include suggestions to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be referenced. Unless otherwise specified by the editor, there is no requirement to cite these works.

Our response:Alright, thank you for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 1 Comments:

This manuscript employs a ‘leisure constraint/constraint-negotiation’ framework to examine constraints on the experience of ancient musical notation poetry. It integrates audience surveys from three ‘Wei's Musical Notation’ concerts and utilizes PLS-SEM to analyze the data. The topic is innovative and relevant to cultural heritage; the materials are novel. Preliminary findings suggest pathways through which individual internal and structural constraints influence preferences and engagement, offering academic and practical value. However, significant improvements are needed in research design transparency, scale development and validation, statistical reporting standards, language and scholarly expression, and adherence to ethics and data sharing. Substantive revisions are recommended prior to reconsideration.

1. Insufficient Standardization and Testability of Research Questions and Hypotheses Research hypotheses are listed at the end of Section 2 but are inconsistent with model annotations. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether “negotiation” is measured, indicating a disconnect between theory and measurement (Lines 117-136, Lines 137-138). Recommendation: Consolidate testable hypotheses at the end of the Introduction or beginning of the Methods section, ensuring one-to-one correspondence with paths in Figure 1 and standardizing boundary terms (preference/engagement/satisfaction and three types of constraints).

Our Response and Revisions:

We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have carefully incorporated the suggested revisions into the manuscript. Specific changes are outlined below:

Added the corresponding hypothesis for Figure 1 at the end of the Introduction: By exploring constraints on the “three-dimensional creation” experience and integrating the “leisure constraints” theory (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Hung and Petrick, 2010), we propose the following hypothesis: “Personal constraints → Preference → Negative, interpersonal relationships → Participation → Negative, structural constraints → Participation → Negative, interpersonal relationships → Satisfaction → Negative, structural constraints → Satisfaction → Negative.” We also investigate the relationship between “Preference → Participation → Positive, Participation → Satisfaction → Positive.”(Lines 43-56).

Theoretical Basis for Scale Revision: This study designed and revised the scale for measuring experiential constraints in classical poetry appreciation based on Churchill's scale design specifications, adapting it to experiential contexts (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Hung and Petrick, 2010)(Lines 103-111).

Reviewer1 Comments:

2. Scale development and psychometric evidence require completion and standardization. The scale's origin and item development process are not described. For example, there is no information regarding the item pool, the ratio of adapted items to self-developed items, expert review, pilot testing, or item screening criteria (lines 189-197). The measurement model report is incomplete. The paper only provides some loadings, namely α, CR, AVE, and VIF. Please add: - A complete item list for each latent construct - Mean/variance of standardized loadings - 95% CIs for α/CR/AVE - HTMT and cross-loading matrices - Explanations for any item deletions and their reasons (Lines 226-239, Lines 240-247, and pages containing Tables 2 and 3, Lines 229-246). The construct operationalization exhibits domain drift. Items such as “number of classical concerts attended” are not fully consistent with “participation in ancient musical poetry”; see Table 2 items “Your average number of concerts per year” and “Your average number of classical music concerts attended per year.” Expanded language quality issues. Significant amounts of Chinglish and unnatural phrasing affecting comprehension and pitch scale assumptions appear throughout the manuscript, particularly in items within the abstract and Table 2 (lines 7-29, 229-246).

Reviewer Comments: Scale development and psychometric evidence require completion and standardization. The scale's origin and item development process are not described. For example, there is no information regarding the item pool, the ratio of adapted items to self-developed items, expert review, pilot testing, or item selection criteria.

Our Response and Revisions:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable comments. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the manuscript with the following specific revisions:

The scale design for measuring classical poetry experience constraints, based on Churchill's (1979) measurement scale design specifications, and its revision within the experiential context (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Hung and Petrick, 2010). Considering the unique characteristics of classical poetry appreciation, we developed a 22-item scale. Following expert panel discussions and preliminary online survey results, two items with low relevance and selection frequency were removed, resulting in a final 20-item scale for measuring classical poetry appreciation. This scale suggests relationships exist between the constraint dimension and preferences, engagement, and satisfaction with classical poetry.(Lines 103-111)

Reviewer comments: This table provides only a few loadings, namely α, CR, AVE, and VIF. Please add a complete item list for each latent construct, the mean/variance of standardized loadings, 95% CIs for α/CR/AVE, HTMT, and cross-loading matrices; explain any item deletions and their reasons.

Our Response and Revisions:

We sincerely apologize for the previous incomplete report. We have systematically supplemented all requested metrics to ensure comprehensiveness in the measurement model evaluation.

1. Complete Item Lists: We have provided complete item lists for all constructs in Tables 4 and 5.

2. Supplementary Statistical Metrics:

We report the mean and variance of standardized loadings for each construct in the revised Table 2. We calculated 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for α, CR, and AVE using Bootstrap (5000 samples) and reported them in the measurement model results section or table footnotes. We supplemented the Heterogeneity-to-Homogeneity Ratio (HTMT) matrix as key evidence for discriminant validity (see Table 4), with all values below the conservative threshold of 0.85. We supplemented cross-loadings matrices and means/standard deviations (see Table 5), showing all items loaded higher on their target construct than on other constructs.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–135.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Item Deletion Explanation: As described in the newly added scale development process above, no items were deleted during the item analysis following the pilot test because all items met the predetermined retention criteria. This has been explicitly stated in the text.

Table 4. HTMT Evaluation

Project Personal constraints preference Interpersonal constraints Structural constraints Participate Satisfaction

Personal constraints 1.000 0.249 0.520 0.456 0.194 0.254

preference 0.249 1.000 0.271 0.290 0.386 0.348

Interpersonal constraints 0.520 0.271 1.000 0.750 0.357 0.173

Structural constraints 0.456 0.290 0.750 1.000 0.412 0.178

Participate 0.194 0.386 0.357 0.412 1.000 0.132

Satisfaction 0.254 0.348 0.173 0.178 0.132 1.000

Table 5. Cross-Load Matrix

Project Personal constraints Interpersonal constraints preference Participate Satisfaction Structural constraints average value Standard deviation

interest 0.805 0.371 0.231 0.108 -0.24 0.338 1.976 0.943

poems 0.88 0.453 0.209 0.185 0.187 0.393 2.139 0.963

melodic 0.844 0.488 0.184 0.206 0.212 0.428 2.158 0.968

thing 0.399 0.69 -0.31 0.367 -0.14 0.785 3.08 1.125

work 0.372 0.53 0.213 0.231 0.193 0.782 2.764 1.188

time 0.383 0.557 0.241 0.300 0.148 0.809 2.783 1.154

information 0.356 0.679 0.273 0.430 -0.11 0.875 3.049 1.17

spot 0.294 0.498 0.081 0.274 0.123 0.7 2.9 1.093

companions 0.502 0.832 0.198 0.290 0.193 0.549 2.384 1.052

tuition 0.322 0.843 0.229 0.339 0.086 0.696 3.068 1.167

accompany 0.432 0.749 0.239 0.233 0.136 0.595 2.596 1.189

daily focus 0.237 0.265 0.921 0.385 0.301 0.287 3.869 1.378

travel matters 0.211 0.221 0.881 0.305 0.328 0.235 4.212 1.378

realize 0.138 0.247 0.246 0.715 0.123 0.308 2.676 0.891

concerts 0.186 0.217 0.328 0.757 0.143 -0.25 2.759 1.041

ancient records 0.124 0.348 0.31 0.814 0.042 0.386 1.903 0.912

overall rating 0.225 0.131 0.194 -0.03 0.773 0.086 4.328 0.775

watch again 0.209 0.145 0.323 0.14 0.914 0.137 4.304 0.827

friend 0.202 0.157 0.341 0.106 0.919 0.167 4.294 0.788

wish 0.266 0.164 0.322 0.165 0.911 0.193 4.35 0.754

Reviewer Comments: Sampling/Procedure Transparency and Representativeness Sampling and procedures were not clearly defined. The sources of audiences for the three concerts, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment channels, online/offline questionnaire ratios, and quality control measures (duplicate data removal, response time, attention checks) were not specified (Lines 140-161, Lines 164-187, Lines 194-201). Remove Figure 2; it does not support this study. Sample representativeness issues. Military personnel constituted 44.4%, indicating significant bias; the 300 public respondents recruited via an official WeChat public account formed a self-selected sample. The limitations to external validity should be honestly stated and discussed (Lines 164–175, 209–223, and 164–175, 223, 164–175, 223, 164–175, 209–223, 164–175, 223, 164–24, 173–187).

Our Response and Revisions:

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review of our manuscript and for highlighting this critical data issue. You are absolutely correct—the initial report indicating that military personnel constituted 44.4% of the sample indeed revealed a significant bias in the data.(Table 1 Descriptive Statistics) We sincerely apologize for this data error and have conducted a thorough review and correction. Upon investigation, the error stemmed from a misstep in the translation sequence between Chinese and English. During the data cleaning phase, due to classification issues between paper and electronic questionnaires, students were mistakenly categorized as “military personnel” during translation. We have re-examined the raw data and implemented a rigorous data validation process.(Lines 205-216)

Variable Category Frequency proportion

Your occupation civil servant 17 4.1

Enterprise and institutional managers 46 11.1

Professional/Technical and Educational Personnel 99 24

Service Sales and Trade Personnel 5 1.2

Worker 2 0.4

peasant 0 0

Military personnel 2 0.4

student 176 42.8

Retirees 15 3.6

Other occupations 49 11.9

Furthermore, we have detailed the recruitment process and quality control guidelines in the main text (line 191-203):

Data for this study was collected during three ancient poetry concerts held between August and December 2024. To ensure sample openness and diversity, audiences for the latter two concerts were recruited via the official WeChat public account using a first-come-first-served random reservation model. Each concert automatically closed registration once 300 attendees were reached, eliminating any manual selection. To accommodate audience habits across different age groups—particularly avoiding a digital divide for students and seniors—data collection employed a combination of paper and electronic questionnaires. Across the three surveys, 322 paper questionnaires were distributed with 281 returned, while 226 electronic questionnaires were simultaneously collected. After rigorous quality control of all returned data—including deduplication based on demographic information, screening response times, and

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0346421.s003.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Jie Zeng

19 Mar 2026

A Study of the Limitations of Musical Experience in Ancient Chinese Poetry—The Case of the Creation Concert of Wei's Music Score

PONE-D-25-36046R1

Dear Dr. Panjie Xie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jie Zeng, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The third reviewer has recommended acceptance; however, he or she noted that some minor revisions are still required. Please carefully revise your manuscript accordingly before submitting the final version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised submission and the detailed point-by-point response. While I appreciate the effort to address reviewer and editorial concerns, I do not think the manuscript reaches the methodological and reporting standards required for publication in PLOS ONE. My recommendation is reject, primarily due to persistent internal inconsistencies, unresolved theory–measurement misalignment, and incomplete compliance with key journal requirements.

1) Theory–measurement misalignment remains unresolved

The manuscript is framed within a “leisure constraints/constraint-negotiation” tradition, yet it remains unclear whether negotiation is actually measured or modeled. This represents a fundamental disconnect between the stated theoretical framework and the implemented measurement/structural model. In the response you acknowledge this gap but do not correct it by either (a) measuring negotiation and testing its role (including indirect effects/mediation as suggested), or (b) revising the theoretical framing and claims so that negotiation is not presented as part of the explanatory mechanism. This problem affects interpretability of the entire model.

2) Scale development and construct validity are still not sufficiently transparent or convincing

You state that the constraints scale was developed using Churchill (1979) procedures and reduced from 22 to 20 items after expert discussion and a preliminary survey. However, the manuscript still lacks essential details needed for reproducibility and psychometric evaluation (e.g., item pool generation process, proportion of adapted vs. newly developed items, expert panel composition/criteria, pilot sample size, explicit decision rules for deletion beyond “low relevance and selection frequency”).

More importantly, the domain drift problem for “Participation” remains: items such as “your average number of concerts per year” and “the average number of times you listen to classical music concerts per year” do not clearly operationalize participation in ancient musical-notation poetry experiences and therefore threaten content validity. This issue was explicitly raised and has not been substantively resolved.

3) Statistical reporting problems raise concerns about result credibility

Although the response claims that reporting has been standardized and that additional indices (e.g., Q², f², VIF) were added, the revised materials provided still show major presentation problems that prevent verification. For example, the discriminant validity table appears corrupted/misaligned and is not interpretable as presented. When core validity evidence cannot be clearly checked, the measurement model cannot be evaluated to PLOS ONE standards.

In addition, you describe bootstrap settings in the response (e.g., 10,000 subsamples, BCa CIs), but the manuscript needs to be fully consistent and transparent about the exact estimation settings used for all reported results.

4) Writing and scholarly tone remain problematic in key places

Despite claims of professional editing, the abstract and parts of the manuscript still contain highly promotional, overgeneralized claims and non-standard phrasing that undermine scholarly clarity (e.g., assertions about cultural self-confidence and broad societal impacts not directly supported by the model and sampling approach). The paper would require substantial rewriting for precision, cautious inference, and terminology standardization.

Reviewer #2: The authors have demonstrated exceptional academic rigor in addressing the feedback from the previous review cycle. The manuscript has significantly evolved from its original version into a technically sound and well-structured study that bridges "Leisure Constraints Theory" with the preservation of cultural heritage. Key Technical Improvements: Regarding statistical robustness, the authors have provided comprehensive evidence for the PLS-SEM analysis, including necessary metrics such as HTMT, VIF, $f^2$, and $Q^2$. The use of 5,000 Bootstrap runs with BCa confidence intervals ensures the stability and reliability of the path coefficients. In terms of data integrity and transparency, the rectification of demographic data (correcting the student vs. military classification error) and the detailed description of the sampling procedure, specifically the random reservation model, have resolved previous concerns regarding data bias and representativeness. Furthermore, the conceptual alignment has been strengthened as the research hypotheses are now clearly defined and show a one-to-one correspondence with the structural model, effectively addressing the "negotiation" measurement gap identified previously. Scholarly Presentation: The manuscript has undergone professional editing, resulting in clear and unambiguous academic English. The removal of nearly 1,000 words of non-academic narrative has significantly enhanced the professional tone and flow of the paper. Regarding discussion depth, the authors have appropriately re-evaluated the $R^2$ values and adopted a more cautious approach toward causal inferences, acknowledging the inherent limitations of cross-sectional field studies.

Reviewer #3: Overall Evaluation

This study applies leisure constraints theory to ancient poetry experience, and the topic is interesting. The research methods are appropriate, the data analysis is generally sound, and the overall structure is clear. However, the manuscript still needs improvement in methodological reporting and result interpretation. Below are specific suggestions for the final polishing stage.

Suggestions

1. Sample size justification

The authors did not explain how the sample size was determined. PLS-SEM typically follows the 10-times rule, which means the sample should exceed 10 times the largest number of paths pointing to a single construct. Please clarify whether the sample of 411 meets this requirement.

2. Causal language

The manuscript uses the word “influence” in several sections. Because this study relies on cross-sectional data, it can only demonstrate correlations rather than direct causality. Please replace “influence” with terms such as “predict” or “correlate with” in some expressions.

3. Model explanatory power

The R² values for preference (0.062) and satisfaction (0.038) are low. The authors’ explanation is reasonable, but the discussion could be expanded to acknowledge potential omitted variables, such as cultural capital or prior poetry exposure.

4. Sentence length

Some sentences are too long. Breaking them into shorter sentences would improve readability.

Summary

The study is methodologically sound and the conclusions are credible. With improvements in reporting, interpretation, and language, the manuscript will be stronger. Please make these revisions during the final polishing stage.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments Manuscript ID [PONE-D-25-36046R1].docx

pone.0346421.s004.docx (13.3KB, docx)

Acceptance letter

Jie Zeng

PONE-D-25-36046R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Xie,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Jie Zeng

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Original data english.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0346421.s001.xlsx (72.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-36046.pdf

    pone.0346421.s002.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0346421.s003.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Comments Manuscript ID [PONE-D-25-36046R1].docx

    pone.0346421.s004.docx (13.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES