The Effects of Traditional Chinese Music and Western Classical Music on Mental Fatigue Induced by Cognitive Tasks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and innovative study. It is methodologically sound. The authors should consider addressing the role of music preference in future studies. Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to personally preferred or favorite music (uplifting music) can significantly impact neurochemical responses, including the release of endorphins and dopamine.

Author Response

Comments 1: This is an interesting and innovative study. It is methodologically sound. The authors should consider addressing the role of music preference in future studies. Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to personally preferred or favorite music (uplifting music) can significantly impact neurochemical responses, including the release of endorphins and dopamine.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out！We agree that individual music preference may play an important role in modulating neurochemical and psychological responses to music interventions. As the present study did not include measures of individual music preference or neurobiological indicators, we were unable to directly examine this mechanism within our dataset. To address this limitation, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the potential influence of music preference and related neurochemical processes as an important direction for future research. This consideration has been added to the Limitations section (lines 394–397), where we note that future studies incorporating preference-based music selection and physiological or neurochemical measures would help to further elucidate these mechanisms. 

"Thus, future studies should sample participants from varied cultural backgrounds and systematically examine the role of musical preference, as favorite, uplifting tracks can markedly boost endorphin and dopamine release. "

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Even if the major subject of the article is not original itself, the cross-cultural perspective is relevant enough and the article deserves to be published after major improvements.

The keywords (“music intervention; fatigue; visual attention task; psychomotor vigilance test”) do not adequately represent the main aspects effectively developed in the text. For instance, “visual attention task”, as formulated in the keywords, is not clearly developed; and while “psychomotor vigilance test” does correspond to a central test, it deserves a deeper contextualization, stronger argumentation, and a clearer demonstration of its impact in the study’s conclusions.

More generally, the theoretical framing is sometimes asserted rather than developed. For example, “Music interventions alleviate mental fatigue through attention regulation” (line 44) is presented as a general mechanism without clarifying which model of mental fatigue the study adopts and how the chosen outcomes map onto that model. In addition, the text sometimes shifts from fatigue to emotion  without clearly justifying why those music-theory points would predict effects on mental fatigue specifically.

The aim and hypothesis are explicit, but several methodological details needed to interpret the findings are missing or ambiguous. Moreover, lines 335–336 introduce a theoretical distinction (“horizontal melodic intentionality” vs “vertical harmonic complexity”) without defining it, citing it, or linking it to measurable predictors; therefore, it cannot be used to explain the observed (non-)difference between music conditions.

There are also clarity and consistency issues. Section 3.2 (page 8) seems to include contradictory statements, e.g., “alertness (after)… was significantly lower than… (before)” alongside “music types significantly improved alertness from pre- to post-test.” As written, the manuscript states alertness is lower after the task (fatigue effect) while also saying music improved alertness from pre to post. These statements conflict and require careful rewording and/or clarification of what is being compared.

Similarly, the “low tempo” considerations need clarification. The manuscript states that “low-tempo music (under 90 beats per minute, BPM) holds unique stress-relieving properties” (lines 120–121), but then describes selected excerpts with a “tempo between 52 bpm (Adagio) and 96 bpm (Moderato)” (lines 141). Some adjustments in terminology and a more consistent definition of “low tempo” would improve coherence.

Finally, the Discussion and conclusion sometimes overstate what the results support. The Discussion states that both music types “effectively reduced mental fatigue” compared to no music, yet it also acknowledges that the key fatigue self-report did not differ between groups: “differences… were not significant between the control group and the two music groups” (lines 302–303).

The Abstract similarly claims that both music types were “effective in mitigating feelings of mental fatigue” (line 21). However, the Results indicate that fatigue-change scores show “No significant difference… between… any group” (lines 234–236) and the main effect of music types on diary fatigue is “non-significant.” Later, the authors reiterate: “The differences between the scores of diary fatigue (pre) and diary fatigue (post) were not significant between the control group and the two music groups” (lines 301–302). These seems contradictory. The statements need to be harmonized, and the conclusions reframed accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is understandable, but revisions are needed to improve precision, consistency of terminology, and alignment of wording across Abstract/Results/Discussion so that the text unambiguously reflects the statistical findings.

Author Response

Comments 1: The keywords (“music intervention; fatigue; visual attention task; psychomotor vigilance test”) do not adequately represent the main aspects effectively developed in the text. For instance, “visual attention task”, as formulated in the keywords, is not clearly developed; and while “psychomotor vigilance test” does correspond to a central test, it deserves a deeper contextualization, stronger argumentation, and a clearer demonstration of its impact in the study’s conclusions.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the keywords to better reflect the conceptual framework and main contributions of our research. Specifically, we have replaced the specific task names (e.g., “visual attention task,” “psychomotor vigilance test”) with broader constructs as “cross-cultural comparison” (highlighting our investigation into Chinese vs. Western music) and “cognitive performance”(encompassing the objective outcomes of fatigue).

Revised Keywords: music intervention; mental fatigue; cross-cultural comparison; cognitive performance.

Comments 2:  More generally, the theoretical framing is sometimes asserted rather than developed. For example, “Music interventions alleviate mental fatigue through attention regulation” (line 46) is presented as a general mechanism without clarifying which model of mental fatigue the study adopts and how the chosen outcomes map onto that model. In addition, the text sometimes shifts from fatigue to emotion  without clearly justifying why those music-theory points would predict effects on mental fatigue specifically.
Response 2:   We genuinely appreciate the your critique regarding the theoretical framing. We agree that the link between mental fatigue, attention, and emotion was previously under-explained. In the revised Introduction, we have reconstructed the theoretical framework to explicitly anchor our hypotheses in two complementary models:

1. The Limited Resource Model (Baumeister et al., 1998): We used this to justify the link between fatigue and emotion. We clarified that cognitive depletion impairs the ability to suppress negative emotions, thereby justifying why emotion regulation via music is a valid mechanism for mitigating mental fatigue.

2. Attention Restoration Theory (ART) (Ohly et al., 1998): We adopted this framework to explain the cognitive mechanism. We elaborated on how music supports attentional regulation (via arousal and resource conservation), mapping these theoretical points to our objective measures (e.g., PVT performance).

By integrating these models, we now provide a clear rationale for why music is expected to alleviate fatigue through both cognitive restoration (attentional pathway) and affective improvement (emotional pathway).

“They may experience difficulties shifting attention away from unimportant information and subsequently spending more time on the task at hand (Boksem et al., 2005; Faber et al., 2012). Limited Resource Model suggests that emotion regulation relies on the same energy pool as cognitive tasks (Baumeister et al., 1998).  Therefore, for those whose mental resources have been depleted, it is challenging to suppress the negative emotions induced by external stimuli (Grillion et al., 2015) and consequently experience more intense negative emotions (Wang, Xie et al., 2022).

Drawing on attention-based models of mental fatigue and applying the framework of Attention Restoration Theory(ART)(Ohly et al., 2016), music interventions are hypothesized to support attentional regulation and recovery from mental fatigue impairment (Ding et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025). Research shows relaxing music can potently reduce fatigue-induced attentional impairment (Guo et al., 2015). Notably, classical music requires greater concentration than pop music and is typically engaged in as a solitary activity (Hanser et al., 2016). ”

And by the shift from fatigue to emotion, we added the clarify in the paragraph:

1. At the beginning: “Complementing the cognitive perspective, the efficacy of music in mitigating mental fatigue can also be predicted through its emotion-regulatory capacity. Given that mental fatigue is inherently linked to a deterioration in mood, music serves as a compensatory resource.”
2. At the end: “Listeners are able to process emotions conveyed in music (Swaminathan & Schellenberg, 2015), triggering activation in brain regions related to emotional processing (i.e., amygdala and hippocampus) (Halko et al., 2015; Koelsch, 2018), restoring the emotional balance disrupted by cognitive exertion. Collectively, music could address the affective dimension of mental fatigue.”

Comments 3:  The aim and hypothesis are explicit, but several methodological details needed to interpret the findings are missing or ambiguous. Moreover, lines 335–336 introduce a theoretical distinction (“horizontal melodic intentionality” vs “vertical harmonic complexity”) without defining it, citing it, or linking it to measurable predictors; therefore, it cannot be used to explain the observed (non-)difference between music conditions.

Response 3:  We sincerely thank for pointing out this flaw in our discussion. We agree that the theoretical distinction here was introduced without sufficient definition or measurement, rendering it unsuitable for explaining our findings.

-We have removed the speculative discussion regarding horizontal/vertical complexity (Lines 335–336).

-We have rewritten this section to interpret the non-significant difference between the two music groups based on shared acoustic characteristics rather than abstract compositional theories. We emphasize that since both interventions shared these relaxing features, they produced similar restorative effects. Revised text in Discussion: “However, both musical traditions appear to be similarly effective in mitigating mental fatigue, suggesting that their beneficial effects may stem from shared features such as slow tempo, instrumental nature, and structural predictability, rather than from culturally specific compositional techniques. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the potential cultural significance of music in shaping user engagement, emotional resonance, and contextual acceptability, warranting profound investigations into the value of traditional Chinese music as well as music from other cultural contexts in future research.”

Comments 4:  There are also clarity and consistency issues. Section 3.2 (page 8) seems to include contradictory statements, e.g., “alertness (after)… was significantly lower than… (before)” alongside “music types significantly improved alertness from pre- to post-test.” As written, the manuscript states alertness is lower after the task (fatigue effect) while also saying music improved alertness from pre to post. These statements conflict and require careful rewording and/or clarification of what is being compared.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The lower post-test alertness scores (compared to pre-test) across all groups are primarily attributable to the effects of fatigue induction. However, the key finding is that, under the influence of music intervention, the music group showed an improvement in post-test alertness scores relative to the control group. This indicates that the music intervention played a beneficial role in mitigating the fatigue-induced decline. We acknowledge that the original wording may have been imprecise and led to ambiguity. Therefore, we have revised the text to more accurately reflect this pattern of results.“Simple effects analysis revealed that all experimental music types significantly positively affected alertness from pre- to post-test (p < 0.05), whereas the control group exhibited a larger significant difference between measurement.”

Comments 5:  Similarly, the “low tempo” considerations need clarification. The manuscript states that “low-tempo music (under 90 beats per minute, BPM) holds unique stress-relieving properties” (lines 120–121), but then describes selected excerpts with a “tempo between 52 bpm (Adagio) and 96 bpm (Moderato)” (lines 141). Some adjustments in terminology and a more consistent definition of “low tempo” would improve coherence.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. We apologize for the confusion caused by the incomplete list in the original appendix. In the actual experiment, the 40-minute playlist consisted of 7 chinese music pieces and 5 western music pieces to ensure continuous playback without repetition. We have rechecked all musical materials and corrected a miscalculation in the BPM range. The specific updates are: “The volume of all the excerpts was between 50 dB and 60 dB, with a tempo between 52 BPM (Adagio) and 84 BPM (Moderato). Music editing software was used selectively to adjust the volume and tempo of the music excerpts. All the selected pieces were played continuously for 40 min in a single, non-repeating sequence, ordered predetermined by ascending original duration. ”

Comments 6:  -Finally, the Discussion and conclusion sometimes overstate what the results support. The Discussion states that both music types “effectively reduced mental fatigue” compared to no music, yet it also acknowledges that the key fatigue self-report did not differ between groups: “differences… were not significant between the control group and the two music groups” (lines 302–303).

-The Abstract similarly claims that both music types were “effective in mitigating feelings of mental fatigue” (line 21). However, the Results indicate that fatigue-change scores show “No significant difference… between… any group” (lines 234–236) and the main effect of music types on diary fatigue is “non-significant.” Later, the authors reiterate: “The differences between the scores of diary fatigue (pre) and diary fatigue (post) were not significant between the control group and the two music groups” (lines 301–302). These seems contradictory. The statements need to be harmonized, and the conclusions reframed accordingly.

Response 6: Thank you again for pointing out this suggestion, We agree with these comments.  Revision below:

Abstract: “The results showed that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated fatigue-related declines in alertness and hedonic tone,  and produced shorter reaction times, although there was no significant difference between the effects of the types of music.”

Discussion:

In paragraph one (Line:322-324） “The current study found that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated mental fatigue related impairments in alertness and emotional affect compared to no music conditions. The effects of music intervention were examined at both the subjective and objective levels.”

In paragraph two (Line:340-343）: “This presents an dissociation between subjective exhaustion and objective performance. While music may not immediately reverse the subjective perception of being “tired” (captured by the diary measure), it may support in restoring functional consequences of mental fatigue.”

At the end of discussion (Line:374-381） : “However, both musical traditions appear to be similarly effective in mitigating mental fatigue, suggesting that their beneficial effects may stem from shared features such as slow tempo, instrumental nature, and structural predictability, rather than from culturally specific compositional techniques. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the potential cultural significance of music in shaping user engagement, emotional resonance, and contextual acceptability, warranting profound investigations into the value of traditional Chinese music as well as music from other cultural contexts in future research.”

Conclusion (Line:406-408）: “The results showed that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated mental fatigue impairments in attention and emotional state, although no significant difference was detected between the two types of music. “

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attatched pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General concept comment 1: 

Comments 1:  es 81-86 state the aim of the study and the hypothesis: “We hypothesized that both types of music effectively alleviate laboratory-induced mental fatigue.” The wording leaves several questions unanswered: How will the alleviation be measured? Why are two types of music used if the same effect is expected? What difference is expected between the two music groups? What effect is expected from the control group without music?

Why were so many variables collected? Which hypotheses led to this selection? Three measures (diary questions, VAS, and the PVT) assess mental fatigue. Which one is the central measure for answering the hypothesis?

Response 1: 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s rigorous questions regarding our study design and hypotheses. We have carefully revised the Introduction to address these points.

1. Clarification on the “Central Measure” (Why multiple variables?): We acknowledge the need to clarify our variable selection. We define mental fatigue as a multidimensional construct comprising both subjective exhaustion and objective performance decline. Previous literature suggests that subjective feelings of fatigue and objective cognitive performance can sometimes dissociate (i.e., feeling tired but performing well, or vice versa). Therefore, instead of relying on a single “central” measure, we adopted a complementary approach:

Primary Outcome Strategy: We treat both the subjective ratings (VAS, Diary) and the objective vigilance task (PVT) as co-primary measures to provide a comprehensive assessment of the intervention’s efficacy. It is now clarified in text see Line 121-124, 2.2 Materials：“Mental fatigue was evaluated through both subjective and objective measures. Subjective fatigue and mental states were assessed using self-reported diary ratings and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), while objective fatigue-related performance was assessed using reaction time measures from the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). ”

2. Clarification on Hypotheses & Comparison:

Intervention vs. Control: We hypothesized that both music groups would show significantly better recovery (reduced subjective fatigue and faster reaction times) compared to the no-music control group (which is expected to show sustained fatigue).

Comparison between Music Types: While we expect both to be effective, we included both Traditional Chinese and Western Classical music to explore whether cultural familiarity differentially enhances the restorative effect (an exploratory comparison).

It is now adjusted in text see Line 92-102, Introduction：“In light of the context discussed above, the present study aimed to evaluate the effects of traditional Chinese music and Western classical music on mental fatigue, using a multidimensional assessment approach. We aimed to investigate whether these interventions could mitigate the decline in both subjective energy levels and objective cognitive vigilance. Specifically, we hypothesized that: (1) Exposure to music (either Traditional Chinese or Western Classical) during the break would lead to a significant reduction in mental fatigue compared with a no-music control condition. (2) This alleviation would be evidenced by improved self-reported ratings and preserved psychomotor performance. (3) We also sought to explore potential differences in efficacy between the two music genres. Additional measures, including mood states, were collected to provide a broader characterization of fatigue-related changes.”

Comments 2: Using many variables (many independent variables or independent variables with several groups, as well as many dependent variables) not only makes the research unclear but also results in statistical problems. The more variables and measures you want to observe, the more participants you need to make reliable conclusions about which effects are (probably) present in the general population and which are not. Statistics always come with error probabilities: Either you might find an effect that isn’t really there (alpha-error), or you fail to detect an effect that really is there (beta-error). In the presented paper, control of both error types could be improved, which currently limits the strength of the evidential claims.

Response 2: Thank you for this important comment regarding the reporting of effect sizes and the relevance of reported statistical tests. We fully agree that effect sizes provide critical information about the magnitude and practical relevance of observed effects, beyond p-values alone.In response, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that effect sizes are consistently reported for all inferential tests. Specifically, Cohen’s d has now been added for ttests reported in Table 3 (please see in Line 276).

- For ANOVA models, by considering in multifactor ANOVA, multiple independent variables share a portion of the variance, and full eta-squared may underestimate or overestimate the true effect of individual variables due to this “variable overlap.” Thus, repeated ANOVA model is reported as partial eta squared, which reflects the proportion of variance explained by a given factor after controlling for other effects in the model, and we now explicitly state this choice in the Statistical Analysis section (please see in Lines 247-249). “Effect sizes for repeated ANOVA model is reported as partial eta squared, which reflects the proportion of variance explained by a given factor after controlling for other effects in the model.”

- Regarding the correlation analyses, we acknowledge that the original Table 1 included correlations that were not directly relevant to the study’s hypotheses (please see in Lines 251-261, Results). We have therefore revised Table 1 to retain only pre- and post-intervention measurements of the outcomes. We believe these revisions substantially improve the clarity, transparency, and evidential strength of the reported results, and we appreciate the reviewer’s guidance in refining the statistical presentation.

“Independent-samples t-tests revealed no significant differences among the three groups regarding age, gender, sleep duration, sleep quality, pre-intervention fatigue, baseline alertness, and baseline PVT reaction time (all p > 0.05), confirming that the random assignment was effective. 

Nine dependent variables were identified, and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. A significant positive correlation was found between diary fatigue (post) and  pre- and post-test PVT reaction times (p < .05), Alertness (pre-test) and Hedonic tone (pre-test) (p < .05), as well as pre-test PVT reaction times and post-test reaction times (p < .05), showed statistically significant positive associations.”

 

General concept comment 2:

Comments 1: The discussion of an effect of different types of music on mental fatigue needs to take into account, who the listeners are: The cultural background,familiarity with the musical style or piece and music preference inform the effect that listening to specific music has. Please add in the abstract, who the participants were (e. g., Chinese psychology undergraduate students). When summarising previous research, always take the properties of the participants into account. When wording a hypothesis regarding the differences between the two musical styles, reason on the basis of who is listening. In which way is traditional Chinese music for the listeners different than Western classical music?

Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion. In the original manuscript, participants were screened using a music preference questionnaire to select those without strong preferences, but the rationale for controlling music preference was not explicitly introduced in the background. We agree that introducing this variable directly in the Methods could seem abrupt. To address this, we have added a discussion in the Introduction regarding the Mozart effect and how different types of music may differentially affect mental fatigue. Within this discussion, we now note that individual differences, including music preference could influence outcomes, thereby providing clearer justification for controlling this variable later in the study. The revision is:“ Notably, these attentional and cognitive benefits vary by individual, as factors like music preference and familiarity modulate emotional and cognitive engagement. (Dickson et al., 2019).” (please see in Lines 59-61）

Regarding the impact of traditional Chinese music on mental health, prior research is indeed limited. However, existing evidence suggests its potential efficacy; for instance, one study found that "Traditional Chinese music appeared to be the most effective in alleviating sadness, compared with rock music and music pieces by Banderi (Lu et al., 2012)."(see Line 76-79) Theoretically, its foundation (e.g., the pentatonic scale) shares similarities with Western music theory (do, re, mi, etc.). Therefore, we proposed the hypothesis that the two traditions may exert comparable effects on mental health.

Comments 2: Abstract, l. 13: I would not say that there is little research of the effect of music listening on cognitive tasks. The seminal study by Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky (1993) in Primary outcomes were defined along two complementary dimensions: subjective fatigue ratings and objective vigilance performance.Nature started a large movement of similar studies. The effect they found was later termed “Mozart effect” and highly overemphasized in the popular media. In the introduction section (l. 49-51), I already see some relevant citation, please also name the term “Mozart effect” in the text.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. To avoid overly definitive claims and enhance precision, we have revised the text by removing the absolute language and reinstating the term “Mozart effect” in the main body. The changes can be found in the Abstract and Introduction (please see Line 53).

Comments 3:

-Section 2.2.2 and Supplementary Material 1: The music list is too unspecific to identify the exact recording used in the experiment.

• Name of composer (Mozart) is missing in the Supplementary Material 1.
• Who performed Mozart’s music? When? Properly cite the recording.
• Similar for the Traditional Chinese Music – how can I find the specific

- L. 143: In which order were the musical pieces played? Were both lists of pieces exactly 40 minutes long? The duration of each piece would be a nice addition for Supplementary Material 1.recordings?

Response 3:  Thank you for your comment. We have thoroughly reviewed the complete stimulus list used in our experiment and revised the main text accordingly to improve clarity and reduce ambiguity (see Lines 155-172).  Additionally, in Supplementary Material 1, we have now provided detailed information for each musical piece, including the composer, performer, and track duration. The play order followed the original duration, from shortest to longest. While the total duration of the combined pieces slightly exceeded 40 minutes for both Chinese and Western selections, all excerpts were integrated using music editing software to adjust volume and tempo uniformly. This ensured that the entire stimulus was presented as a continuous, non-repeating 40-minute sequence in the experiment, as described in the main text.

The revision is: “For consistency, only instrumental pieces were chosen for the present study. The following music tracks were sourced from NetEase Cloud Music, China. For the traditional Chinese music group, Chinese instrumental ensembles 7 pieces included “Gao Shan Liu Shui” (“High Mountains and Flowing Waters”), “Cai Yun Zhui Yue” (“Colorful Clouds Chasing the Moon”), and “Chun Jiang Hua Yue Ye” (“A Moonlit Night on the Spring River”) performed and recorded by prominent Chinese orchestras or soloists. For the Western classical music group, according to the “Mozart effect”, we selected Mozart’s 5 pieces included “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, K. 525 II. Romance,” “Clarinet Concerto in A major, K. 622: II. Adagio” and “Concerto for flute and harp in C major, K.299.” A complete copy of the Music list is provided in Supplementary 1.”

Supplementary Material 1

The list of musical pieces selected

Category	Musical pieces	Composer	Performer	Track duration
Traditional Chinese music	Gao Shan Liu Shui	/	CHINA RECORD CORPORATION	07:59
	Cai Yun Zhui Yue	/	China Broadcasting Chinese Orchestra	03:30
	Chun Jiang Hua Yue Ye	/	Central Chinese Orchestra	09:19
	Yu Zhou Chuan Wan	/	Chinese National Orchestra	04:48
	Mei Hua San Nong	/	China National Traditional Orchestra	05:07
	Zui Yu Chang Wan	/	Chinese National Orchestra	04:28
	Han Gong Qiu Yue	/	Dehai Liu	07:00
Western classical music	Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, K. 525 II. Romanc	Mozart	New Philharmonia Orchestra	06:08
	Clarinet Concerto in A major, K. 622: II. Adagio	Mozart	Royal Philharmonic Orchestra	08:52
	Concerto for flute and harp in C major, K.299	Mozart	Berliner Philharmoniker	11:20
	Piano Concerto No. 21, K. 467: II. Andante	Mozart	The Cleveland Orchestra	07:47
	Piano Concerto No. 23 in A Major, K. 488:II. Adagio	Mozart	Maria Joao Pires / Gulbenkian Foundation Symphony Orchestra Lisbon / Theodore Guschlbauer	07:20

Note：”/” indicates that no single composer can be identified; the piece is of traditional origin.

 

Comments 4:  L. 68-69: You list three types of traditional Chinese music. The second one is described as „folk instruments (music)“ – it remains unclear how this one is distinguished from the other two and why this is termed „music“ although all three describe types of music.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. It is absolutely correct that the original phrasing “folk instruments (music)” was imprecise and potentially confusing, as all three listed items are indeed categories of music. We have revised the text to read ”folk instrumental music.” This term accurately denotes the genre of music performed primarily on traditional Chinese folk instruments (e.g., erhu, pipa, dizi), distinguishing it from the vocal-focused ”folk song” and the broader, often ritual or theatrical context of “indigenous music.” Please see Lines 79 to 81.

The revision is: Traditional Chinese music can be categorized into folk songs, Quyi (melodious art), folk instrumental music, and Xiqu instruments (traditional Chinese opera instruments) (Wang, 2022). 

Comments 5: 

- L. 70-77: It remains unclear if the five Chinese notes refer to the notes C, D, E, G, and A, or if Gong refers to the root tone of a key (“do” in solmisation, if you might be familiar with the concept), and the other ones to the corresponding steps up. I assume you mean the latter, although I read it differently from the manuscript.

- In l. 73, Hui scales are mentioned but not explained.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Regarding the five Chinese notes, they can be understood as corresponding to the solfège syllables do, re, mi, sol, and la, respectively (or C, D, E, G, and A when exemplified in the key of C major). As for the issue with "Hui," we apologize for this typographical error, "Hui" in the manuscript refers to "Zhǐ." We have corrected this accordingly and carefully checked the article for any other typographical errors. Please see Lines 81–86.

The revision is: “ Its scale is pentatonic, utilizing five tones: Gōng (“宫”), Shāng (“商”), Jué (“角”), Zhǐ (“徵”), and Yǔ (“羽”). These tones correspond theoretically to the Western solfège syllables do, re, mi, sol, and la, or the pitch classes C, D, E, G, and A in the key of C major. In terms of melodic structure, the Gong and Zhǐ modes resemble Western major scales, whereas the Yu mode is comparable to Western minor scales (Yang & Zheng, 2021). “

 

Comments 6: - L. 94: How were participants separated into groups? Hopefully randomly, but how was it accomplished?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have added information regarding participant randomization in Section 2.1 (Participants). Specifically, participants were randomly assigned to groups using a stratified randomization procedure with a computer-generated allocation sequence prepared by an independent researcher. Please see Lines 112–115.

The revision is: "Participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: traditional Chinese music, Western classical music, or a silent control group (n=16 per group). To ensure gender balance across groups, a stratified randomization procedure was implemented using a computer-generated allocation sequence prepared by an independent researcher. "

 

Comments 7: - L. 108-110: „the penultimate number counting from it“ is unclear. The explanation between Figure 1 is better understandable. Please clarify.

Response 7: Agree. I have accordingly revised the figure to align with the legend in Figure 1. The change can be found between Line 134 to 135.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The claims that “The current study found that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated mental fatigue related impairments in alertness and emotional affect compared to no music conditions.”(p. 10, lines 317-319) The statement that "music mitigated mental fatigue" is too categorical, namely because the statement that "participants who received either traditional Chinese music interventions or Western music interventions reported feeling as fatigued as those who had not received any intervention" (lines 334-336) seems contradicts the first sentence. I suggest to change the first sentence by integrating a slightly less categorical, as for instance   “...mitigated fatigue-related impairments in alertness and emotional affect...”

Another point to be considered: between lines 284 - 287, the statement that "all experimental music types significantly positively affected alertness from pre- to post-test (p < 0.05), whereas the control group exhibited a larger significant difference between measurement.” seems not in clear alignment with the studies results. Th study seems shows that alertness declined in all groups and that music attenuated the decline but did not increase alertness. so, to state that "all experimental music types significantly positively affected alertness" is maybe to categorical too.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is understandable, but revisions are needed to improve precision, consistency of terminology, and alignment of wording across Abstract/Results/Discussion so that the text unambiguously reflects the statistical findings.

Author Response

Comment 1:  The claims that “The current study found that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated mental fatigue related impairments in alertness and emotional affect compared to no music conditions.”(p. 10, lines 317-319) The statement that "music mitigated mental fatigue" is too categorical, namely because the statement that "participants who received either traditional Chinese music interventions or Western music interventions reported feeling as fatigued as those who had not received any intervention" (lines 334-336) seems contradicts the first sentence. I suggest to change the first sentence by integrating a slightly less categorical, as for instance “...mitigated fatigue-related impairments in alertness and emotional affect...”

Response 1: Thank you again for pointing this out! Revision is: “The current study found that both traditional Chinese music and Western classical music mitigated fatigue-related impairments in alertness and emotional affect compared to no music conditions.”

Comment 2: Another point to be considered: between lines 284 - 287, the statement that "all experimental music types significantly positively affected alertness from pre- to post-test (p < 0.05), whereas the control group exhibited a larger significant difference between measurement.” seems not in clear alignment with the studies results. Th study seems shows that alertness declined in all groups and that music attenuated the decline but did not increase alertness. so, to state that "all experimental music types significantly positively affected alertness" is maybe to categorical too.

Response 2: Thank you again for pointing out this suggestion! We agree with these comments.  Revision below:”Simple effects analysis revealed that all experimental music conditions were associated with a significantly reduced decline in alertness from pre- to post-test, whereas the control group exhibited a larger decrease (p < 0.05).”

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attatched file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1 : Whenever several statistical tests are reported, the alpha-error accumulates. For example, for five tests, each with p = .05 as a threshold, the probability of an alphaerror is already about 23%. Therefore, a correction is necessary, with popular options being Bonferroni or Holm.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment！ We apologize for not addressing this part in the initial response. In response to the concern about alpha-error accumulation, we applied Bonferroni-adjusted significance thresholds to all analyses involving multiple paired-sample comparisons. Specifically, for paired-sample t-tests assessing pre–post changes in fatigue, a corrected alpha level of α = 0.025 was adopted. All reported significant results remained significant after this correction (Results section, see Lines 279-282).

Revision below: “Given the multiple paired-sample comparisons, a Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold (α = 0.025) was applied to control for family-wise error. Paired-sample t-tests showed a significant increase in diary fatigue from pre- to post-task , which remained significant after Bonferroni correction (p < 0.01).”

The Data Analysis section has also been supplemented with the adoption of the Bonferroni correction method (Methods section, see Lines 252-253).

Revision below: “Additionally, Bonferroni corrections were applied to post hoc and simple effects analyses involving multiple comparisons.”

Given the limitations of the methods employed, we have added the following explanation in the Limitations section(Discussion section, see Lines 397-400).

Revision below: “While the study applied Bonferroni correction to control for family-wise error, the modest sample size may have limited statistical sensitivity to small effects, in addition to the inherent constraints of self-reported and behavioral measures. ”

Comment 2：the necessary sample size for the planned analysis and research design should be calculated before data collection begins. This calculation is called power analysis – power equals 1 − β (the complement of the beta error rate, therefore, if the error is low, statistical power is high). Several free software options offer ways of calculation, e.g., G*Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G*Power). If you now calculate the power of your analysis post-hoc, the calculation will probably reveal that, for the number of variables included, the sample size, and the observed effect size, the statistical power was below the recommended 80%. To be transparent about the limited precision and statistical power, report effect sizes with confidence intervals for all tests and acknowledge the limited precision in the discussion.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We apologize for not addressing this part in the initial response. Therefore, we have added information in Section 2.1 (Participants). Specifically, the sample size for the planned analysis and research design are calculated. Please see Lines 107–110.

The revision is: “To ensure adequate statistical power, a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power software. With an effect size of 0.3, an alpha level of 0.05, and power set at 0.80, a minimum sample size of 31 participants per group was required. To account for potential attrition, 63 students initially enrolled. To minimize the impact of music preference, participants who showed no preference for Chinese or Western classical music in the music preference questionnaire were invited to participate in the experiment (N = 48).”

Comment 3： Report confidence intervals for all effect sizes to reflect the uncertainty in estimation.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. To reflect uncertainty in effect size estimation, we now report 95% confidence intervals for mean differences in all paired-sample. In the context of paired-sample t-tests, the mean difference (MD) is treated as the primary effect size, and its associated confidence interval is reported alongside t- and p-values (Results section). Effect sizes for ANOVA and repeated-measures ANOVA are reported using partial η², consistent with standard reporting practices. Revisions please see Results section, Line 276-278,308-309.

Revision below: "Paired-sample t-tests conducted states revealed a significant increase in subjective fatigue for the control group (t =-5.519, p < 0.05, MD = 3.37, 95% CI [2.072, 4.678]) and we also observed difference in the music group (t =-5.368, p < 0.05, MD = 2.72, 95% CI [1.686, 3.752]) ;" "Paired-sample t-tests conducted states revealed a significant increase in subjective reaction time for the control group (t =-10.222, p < 0.05, MD = 110.067, 95% CI [89.638, 130.495]) and we also observed difference in the music group (t =-2.012, p < 0.1, MD = 10.447, 95% CI [-5.078, 25.972])"

Comment 4：Ensure that all claims in the discussion are fully supported by the results and do not overstate the strength or certainty of the findings.

Response 4:  Agree. We carefully reviewed the Discussion and revised several statements to ensure they accurately reflect the results. Specifically, phrases such as “outperformed controls” were replaced with more precise wording (e.g., “showed that both music groups displayed similar advantages over the control group”) to accurately reflect that the observed group differences resulted from preserved performance in the music groups versus greater decline in the control group, rather than absolute performance enhancement (Discussion, paragraph 1). Furthermore, strong concluding phrases (e.g., “it can be concluded that”) were replaced with more conservative formulations (e.g., “the findings suggest” or “the results indicate”) to better reflect the exploratory and laboratory-based nature of the study (Discussion and Conclusion sections).