Table 5.
Overview of results for cognitive outcomes.
| Study | Design | Outcome measure | Results | Quality (D&B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive screening tools | ||||
| Wang et al. (2018) | RCT | MMSE MoCA |
MMSE: Between group improvement for singing (n = 30) compared to control (n = 30) MoCA: Between group improvement for singing (n = 30) compared to control (n = 30), within group improvement for singing at immediate and 3-month follow-up |
66% |
| Cooke et al. (2010a) | RCT | MMSE | No significant change (n = 47) | 85% |
| Chen et al. (2019) | NCT | MMSE | No between group improvement in total score, between group improvement for singing group (n = 21) on “recall” subscale compared to control (n = 22) | 80% |
| Takahashi and Matsushita (2006) | NCT | R-HDS | No significant change (n = 43) | |
| Maguire (2021) | QE | MMSE (& R-MMSE) CDT (& R-CDT) NARR CS |
MMSE & R-MMSE: no significant change CDT: Between group improvement for singing group (n = 7) compared to control (n = 15) R-CDT: Between group improvement for singing group (n = 7) compared to control (n = 12) NAAR: no significant change CS: Between group improvement for singing group (n = 8) compared to control (n = 5) |
47% |
| Camic et al. (2011) | QE | MMSE ACE-R |
No pre-post change on either measure (n = 10) | 70% |
| Davidson and Fedele (2011) | QE | HDS | No significant change (n = 27) | 41% |
| Neuropsychological batteries | ||||
| Lyu et al. (2018) | RCT | MMSE WHO-UCLA AVLT SVFT |
MMSE: no significant change (n = 288) WHO-UCLA AVLT: no significant change (n = 288) SFVT: between group improvement for singing (n = 97) and music listening (n = 96) compared to control (n = 95) at immediate follow up; between group improvement for singing (n = 97) compared to control (n = 95) at 6 month follow up |
85% |
| Pongan et al. (2017) | RCT | Neuropsychological Battery: FCRT - TMT - DST - Digit Span -Stroop Test - LCFT -FAB |
FCRT: no overall change, between group decrease (worsening) for painting (n = 28), compared to singing (n = 31) on one item (total recall) Stroop Test: Within group improvements for both groups (decreased interference errors), non-significant trend to greater improvement in singing group (n = 31) No significant results for other tests |
88% |
| Särkämö et al. (2014) | RCT | Neuropsychological Battery: - General cognition - Orientation - Short-term and working memory - Verbal learning - Delayed memory - Verbal skills - Visuospatial skills - Attention and executive function |
Immediate follow up: General cognition: between group improvement for singing (n = 27) and music listening (n = 29) compared to control (n = 28) Attention and executive function: between group improvement for singing (n = 27) and music listening (n = 29) compared to control (n = 28) Short term and working memory: between group improvement for singing (n = 27) compared to music listening (n = 29) and control (n = 28) Long term (9 month) follow up: Orientation: Between group decline (worsening) for control (n = 23) compared to singing (n = 23) and music listening (n = 28) No significant results for other tests |
77% |
| Satoh et al. (2015) | NCT | MMSE RCPM RBMT WF |
RCPM: between group improvement in “time to complete” for singing group (n = 10) compared to control (n = 10) No other significant results |
64% |
| Fraile et al. (2019) | QE | EFCL PSF Cued recall |
Cued Recall: pre-post improvement during training period compared to non-training period No significant results for EFCL and PSF (n = 12) When outlier was removed (n = 11), pre-post improvements in total EFCL and executive processes EFCL during training periods |
68% |
| Specific word recall | ||||
| Moussard et al. (2014) | QE | Observational data based on: Phase 1: Measured retention of lyrics learnt |
Phase 1: Hearing condition had significantly stronger learning effect than shadowing for participants with AD (n = 8) Immediate recall: Delayed recall: improved in all sung conditions compared to spoken conditions, with ‘sung, high familiar' conditions being the most effective. Phase 2: Immediate recall: improved across sessions in both spoken and sung conditions | 56% |
| in spoken vs different type of singing conditions] Phase 2: Measured rate of learning for participants with dementia for spoken and sung non-familiar conditions over 4-week delay |
Delayed recall: no overall effect, non-significant trend towards better performance in singing conditions compared to spoken after six sessions. Three participants with AD performed significantly better in sung condition than spoken | |||
| Prickett and Moore (1991) | QE | Video analysis measuring frequency of words recalled and memorised during sung and spoken conditions |
Sung lyrics were recalled more frequently than words in spoken conditions Performance was more accurate for singing words to long-familiar songs compared to reciting familiar words, recalling a new song, and reciting a new poem |
56% |