Music intervention (MI) has been applied as an effective adjunctive treatment for pain control in various clinical settings. However, no meta-analysis has yet been published on the analgesic effects of MI in infants and children. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the keywords “pain” AND “music therapy” from inception to January 2022. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and vital signs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) values and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using a random effect model. Subgroup analyses with age groups, types of pain, and music styles were conducted. A total of 38 RCTs involving 5601 participants met the selection criteria. MI significantly decreased the pain levels (SMD = −0.57, p < 0.001), both in the newborn group (p = 0.007) and in the infant/children group (p < 0.001). MI significantly reduced heart rate (SMD = −0.50, p < 0.001) and respiratory rate (SMD = −0.60, p = 0.002) and increased peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SMD = 0.44, p < 0.001). In subgroup analyses of types of pain, MI had significant effects on prick pain (p = 0.003), chronic and procedural pain (p < 0.001), and postoperative pain (p = 0.018). As for music styles, significant analgesic effects were observed for classical music (p < 0.001), kids’ music (p < 0.001), and pop music (p = 0.001), but not for world music (p = 0.196), special composition (p = 0.092), and multiple music combinations (p = 0.420). In conclusion, our analysis provides supportive evidence about the efficacy of MI, especially classical, kids’, and pop music, in controlling prick, procedural, and postoperative pain in the pediatric population.

Visual object recognition and sensitivity to image features are largely influenced by contextual inputs. We study influences by contextual bars on the bias to perceive or infer the presence of a target bar, rather than on the sensitivity to image features. Human observers judged from a briefly presented stimulus whether a target bar of a known orientation and shape is present at the center of a display, given a weak or missing input contrast at the target location with or without a context of other bars. Observers are more likely to perceive a target when the context has a weaker rather than stronger contrast. When the context can perceptually group well with the would-be target, weak contrast contextual bars bias the observers to perceive a target relative to the condition without contexts, as if to fill in the target. Meanwhile, high-contrast contextual bars, regardless of whether they group well with the target, bias the observers to perceive no target. A Bayesian model of visual inference is shown to account for the data well, illustrating that the context influences the perception in two ways: (1) biasing observers' prior belief that a target should be present according to visual grouping principles, and (2) biasing observers' internal model of the likely input contrasts caused by a target bar. According to this model, our data suggest that the context does not influence the perceived target contrast despite its influence on the bias to perceive the target's presence, thereby suggesting that cortical areas beyond the primary visual cortex are responsible for the visual inferences. We study how visual perception of a target bar can be biased by contextual bars in the image, and how a Bayesian model of object inference can account for the data. Human observers are more likely to perceive a target bar when the contextual contrast, i.e., the luminance difference between the contextual bars and background, is weaker rather than stronger. Relative to the situation without the context, they are biased to perceive the target in a context of weak contrast when the target can perceptually group well with the context, as if the context fills in the target. Meanwhile, they are biased not to perceive the target in a context of strong contrast, as if the context suppresses the perception, regardless of whether it could perceptually group well with the would-be target. The Bayesian model illustrates that the context influences the perception by biasing (1) observers' prior belief that a target should be present and (2) observers' internal model of the likely input contrasts from a target bar. Our data suggest that brain areas beyond the primary visual cortex along the visual pathway are responsible for inferring object causes for input images.

Numerous previous studies have shown the effectiveness of music therapy in enhancing cognitive functions in patients with dementia. Despite this, robust evidence in this field, especially concerning the comparison of different music therapy types, is lacking. Therefore, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on music therapy and cognitive functions in dementia patients, termed by “music” AND “dementia” OR “Alzheimer’s disease” AND “cognitive”, were identified from primary electronic databases to conduct this network meta-analysis (NMA). The primary outcome focused on the impact on cognitive functions, and the secondary outcome was the comparison of dropout rates between the intervention groups and the usual care control groups. Standardized mean difference (SMD) values and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for effect evaluation. This study protocol has been registered in IPLASY (INPLASY202430082). A total of 14 RCTs with 1056 participants were enrolled, examining interventions including Active Music Therapy (AMT), Active Music Therapy with Singing (AMT + Sing), Rhythmic Music Therapy (RMT), Listening to Music (LtM), and Singing (Sing). The results indicated that RMT, AMT + Sing, and AMT all significantly improve cognitive functions in dementia patients, of which the SMD were 0.76 (95% CI = 0.32–1.21), 0.79 (95% CI = 0.03–1.49), and 0.57 (0.18–0.96), respectively. Compared with the control group (usual care), no music therapy type was associated with an increased dropout risk. In conclusion, music therapy can improve cognitive functions in patients with dementia without increasing the risk of dropout, particularly RMT, AMT + Sing, and AMT.

A vertical bar is salient among horizontal ones by orientation contrast, and, traditionally, bottom—up salience is viewed as caused only by feature contrast. Recently, it has been proposed that the primary visual cortex (V1) creates a bottom—up salience map in its outputs, which depends on direct inputs and on contextual inputs by intra-cortical interactions (Li Zhaoping, 2002 Trends in Cognitive Sciences6 9–16). Since the interactions include iso-feature (eg iso-orientation) suppression, responsible for salience by feature contrast, and collinear facilitation, the V1 proposal predicts that collinear grouping contributes to salience additionally. Accordingly, in orientation textures, texture bars are more salient near texture borders owing to orientation contrast, and are even more salient when they are additionally parallel to the border by collinear grouping. We show that colour changes in texture bars are more detectable when the bars are parallel to the texture border. Since changes are more detectable at salient locations, our finding supports V1 mechanisms for bottom—up salience.