Author: Joseph Hindi — Staff Writer
Date: August 22nd, 2025
Music has established itself as one of the highest and most well-known forms of art, and that has been the case for over ten thousand years. Surprisingly, something that not everyone consciously realizes is that music transcends itself as more than just an art or a tool of leisure. It has also proven itself to be beneficial to the human physiology in more ways than one; in other words, it has numerous and measurable physiological effects. However, despite the existing studies revolving around this topic (which are plentiful and bountiful), the comparison of the results is still difficult due to the wide variety of methodologies involved. In this commentary, a discussion about the benefits, the inconsistent research, and the standardized, STEM-based approaches to studying the effects of music on the human body will be brought to light and argued about.
Why Music Matters in STEM Research
Music is often celebrated for its cultural and artistic value, but its significance extends far beyond aesthetics. From a STEM perspective, music is a biological stimulus capable of producing measurable changes in the human body. When sound waves enter the ear, they are transformed into neural signals that engage not only the auditory cortex but also deeper brain structures tied to memory, emotion, and bodily regulation. This direct link between auditory input and physiological response explains why music is increasingly studied in neuroscience, psychology, and clinical medicine.
A growing body of research highlights music’s ability to modulate the autonomic nervous system, shifting the balance between sympathetic (“fight-or-flight”) and parasympathetic (“rest-and-digest”) activity. For example, slow, rhythmic pieces often reduce heart rate and blood pressure, while fast, energetic pieces can temporarily elevate arousal levels. Neurochemical studies further reveal that music can stimulate the release of dopamine and endorphins, both associated with pleasure and pain reduction. These effects extend into clinical applications: post-operative patients report lower pain levels when exposed to music, and individuals with anxiety disorders experience reduced stress markers after listening sessions.
In this sense, music represents an accessible, non-invasive, and low-cost intervention with potential benefits across diverse populations. Unlike pharmaceutical treatments, it carries no chemical side effects, and unlike more intensive therapies, it can be integrated seamlessly into daily life. For STEM researchers, this makes music an intriguing candidate for systematic exploration—provided it is studied with appropriate rigor.
The Inconsistency in Research
Despite promising findings, research on music’s physiological effects is hampered by methodological inconsistency. Studies often differ dramatically in the type of music used, the listening environment, and the outcomes measured. One trial might use classical music played softly in a clinic, another might test pop music through headphones in a laboratory, and a third may allow participants to select their own playlists. When such diverse approaches are grouped together, results become difficult — if not impossible — to compare meaningfully.
Equally problematic is the lack of precision in reporting. Many studies refer broadly to “relaxing music” or “energetic music” without quantifying measurable features such as tempo (BPM), loudness (dB), or duration of exposure. Without these details, replication is compromised and meta-analyses are forced to rely on vague categories rather than standardized variables. Furthermore, individual factors such as cultural background, prior familiarity with the music, or even the use of lyrics are often overlooked, despite their influence on emotional and physiological responses.
This inconsistency has two consequences: first, it weakens the credibility of findings in the eyes of the broader scientific community; and second, it slows the translation of music-based interventions into clinical practice. If music is to be integrated into healthcare or wellness programs in a systematic way, researchers must move beyond anecdotal evidence and fragmented methods. A unified framework for defining and reporting “music dose” is therefore essential — a solution addressed in the following section.
Standardizing Music Research as a STEM-Oriented Solution
If music is to be taken seriously as a scientific intervention, it must be studied with the same rigor as other biological stimuli. In clinical research for example, drugs are defined by their dosage, method of delivery, and timing. Though intangible in nature, music can and should be treated in a similar manner. At present, the lack of inconsistency in describing what music is used, how it is delivered, and under what conditions it is experienced has limited the reliability and comparability of the findings. To move forward with this, researchers must begin to define a standardized “music dose.”
A standardized framework should include, at the very least, the following measurable key parameters:
By treating these variables as standard reporting requirements, studies would become far easier to compare and replicate. This would allow researchers to develop meta-analyses with stronger statistical power and to identify reliable patterns across populations and contexts.
Applications and Future Directions
Once music is approached through a standardized, STEM-based framework, its applications expand dramatically. Hospitals already experiment with music therapy to reduce pre-surgical anxiety, manage post-operative pain, and improve patient satisfaction. With standardized protocols, these practices could move from being optional enhancements to evidence-based clinical tools.
Beyond the hospital, music shows potential in rehabilitation and cognitive health. Stroke survivors benefit from rhythmic auditory stimulation to aid motor recovery, and individuals with dementia often respond positively to familiar songs. In educational and workplace settings, music could serve as a tool for enhancing concentration and emotional regulation.
Looking ahead, advances in technology point toward an era of personalized music prescriptions. Wearable devices that monitor heart rate or brainwave activity could be paired with adaptive playlists that respond in real time. Such closed-loop systems represent the intersection of music, biofeedback, and artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Music is more than just a cultural expression. It is also a biological stimulus capable of influencing the human body in measurable ways. Yet, without standardized methods of studying it, research remains fragmented and difficult to translate into practice. By defining and reporting “music dose”—tempo, loudness, duration, mode, selection, and delivery—researchers can build a reliable foundation for clinical and everyday applications. With this framework in place, music has the potential to evolve from an underutilized resource into a consistent, evidence-based tool for improving health, well-being, and human performance.
Definitions:
Valence: The perceived emotional quality of a piece, often categorized into positive or negative tones.
Acoustic: Music produced with unamplified instruments, emphasizing purity of sound and simplicity.