You might want to look at a 1980s trend by searching for the term "pregaphone." It isn't as titillating, but essentially the same idea. Carol
Phone mail > On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Jon Mueller <jfmuel...@noctrl.edu> wrote: > > > > Jeff, > > I really appreciate your ongoing review of this research. Not only are you > doing our work for us(!), but you are doing it quite well. So, this can > potentially serve as a great example in our courses. I look forward to > Chapters 3 and 4. Thanks, > > Jon > > > > > =============== > Jon Mueller > Professor of Psychology > North Central College > 30 N. Brainard St. > Naperville, IL 60540 > voice: (630)-637-5329 > fax: (630)-637-5121 > jfmuel...@noctrl.edu > http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu > > > >>> "Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D." <jeff.ric...@scottsdalecc.edu> 1/7/2016 11:02 PM > >>> >>> > The other day, I posted some excerpts from a newspaper article about > Babypod—a device that plays music for developing fetuses through a speaker > that the pregnant mother inserts into her vagina. The parents even can listen > along with the fetus by putting on headphones attached to wires that hang out > of the vagina. My post seemed to generate no obvious interest; but the claims > seemed so outrageous to me that I have continued to investigate the > scientific evidence for them. > > On the Babpod website, Dr. Marisa López-Teijón—apparently a reputable > researcher in reproductive medicine at the Institut Marquésin Barcelona, > Spain—claimed that ““Babies learn to speak in response to sound stimuli, > especially melodic sound. Babypod is a device that stimulates before birth > through music. With Babypod, babies learn to vocalize from the womb.” > López-Teijón developed a prototype of this device, and it was implied that it > was based on her research on fetal development. In fact, López-Teijón, > García-Faura, & Prats-Galino (2015) published an article that looked at some > possible effects of intravaginal musical stimulation of fetuses. > > But I realized that, before I can critically examine that article, I needed > to look at other research that might help to explain why a reputable group of > researchers became involved in a commercial enterprise that makes (what seem > to me to be) very dubious claims about the effects of music on fetal > development. > > I just finished reading another article by López-Teijón and her colleagues > (López-Teijón, Castelló, Asensio, et al., 2015) on the effects of music on > embryos produced through in-vitro fertilization. I’ll keep this short, which > means my discussion probably will over-simplify their analyses, > interpretations, and conclusions. But you can download the paper from here > and read it yourself: > http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/improvement-of-fertilization-rates-of-in-vitro-cultured-human-embryos-by-exposure-to-sound-vibrations-2375-4508-1000160.php?aid=63299 > > López-Teijón, et al. (2015) referred to prior research that showed that > “microvibrations” improved in vitro development of human embryos. > Microvibrations, they stated, mimic peristaltic movements in the fallopian > tubes, and such movements are thought to be important for “the dispersal of > toxic metabolites generated by the oocyte, zygote or embryo and to the uptake > of nutrients and molecules needed for further development.” In addition, they > stated, “mechanical stimulation has been shown to activate DNA synthesis and > gene transcription in endothelial and bone cells.” > > López-Teijón, et al. (2015) hypothesiszed that music would improve rates of > in vitro fertilization and “embryo quality” (see article for details about > the latter). They used three types of music: pop, heavy metal and classical. > “The source of music was a commercially available MP3 player (iPod, Apple > Inc., California, USA) placed inside each incubator and played constantly > throughout embryo culture.” > > They found a staistically significant increase in fertilization rates 16-19 > hours post-insemination in the music group (no differences between the three > types of music, though). “The results of the descriptive analyses showed that > fertilization rates were significantly higher (p<0.05) in the group exposed > to music when compared with those not exposed to music (81.1% vs. 77.8% > respectively). There was no overlap of the 95% confidence intervals between > the group with music (80.7% - 83.3%) and the group without music (76.3% and > 79.3%).” > > They found no improvement, however, in their measures of “embryo quality,” > which were obtained about 44 hours after insemination. > > They concluded that “the routine use of music inside incubators during in > vitro culture could be a useful tool to improve fertilization rates.” > > After looking at the methodological and analytical details in their article, > I think this conclusion is more than a bit hasty. And replication by another > group of researchers would be important, of course. > > In my next post, I want to look at the paper by García-Faura, & Prats-Galino > (2015), in which they propose that intravaginal musical stimulation “could be > used as a method for fostering fetal well-being” and that “it would be > interesting to conduct further studies to explore this approach as a possible > diagnostic method for prenatal hear-ing screening,” > > Best, > Jeff > > References > > López-Teijón, M., Castelló, C., Asensio, M., Fernández, P., Farreras, A., > Rovira, S., Capdevila, J. M., & Velilla, E. (2015). Improvement of > fertilization rates of in vitro cultured human embryos by exposure to sound > vibrations. Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro-IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive > Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biology, 2015. doi: 10.4172/2375-4508.1000160 > > López-Teijón, M., García-Faura, Á., & Prats-Galino, A. (2015). Fetal facial > expression in response to intravaginal music emission. Ultrasound, > doi:10.1177/1742271X15609367 > http://ult.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/09/29/1742271X15609367.full.pdf > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Social/Behavioral Sciences > Scottsdale Community College > 9000 E. Chaparral Road > Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 > Office: SB-123 > Fax: (480) 423-6298 > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrJeffryRicker/timeline/ > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeffry-ricker/3b/511/438 > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: jfmuel...@noctrl.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13269.01f6211e00cc8f00a7b68e8e24b1b4d6&n=T&l=tips&o=47797 > or send a blank email to > leave-47797-13269.01f6211e00cc8f00a7b68e8e24b1b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: devoldercar...@gmail.com. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=177920.a45340211ac7929163a0216244443341&n=T&l=tips&o=47803 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-47803-177920.a45340211ac7929163a0216244443...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=47806 or send a blank email to leave-47806-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
