Low frequency and infrasound: A critical review of the myths, misbeliefs and their relevance to music perception research

Abstract

Over the last several decades low frequency and infrasound have become relevant to many fields of research-most recently psychology and musicology, among others. Interpretation of data from experimental research has raised concern that low frequency and infrasound could be potentially harmful to humans' well-being. While the physiological and psychological effects of infrasound are well documented, a variety of myths promulgated by pseudoscientific authors and newspapers still make it difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction, especially for people with little or no knowledge in acoustics. Myths are widespread today and result mainly from the one-dimensional view on sound, outof-context citations, and a number of "sensational" findings from biased studies. The aim of this review is to evaluate the relevance of data from a music-psychological and psychoacoustic point of view, to give a consistent overview of the history of research, to examine the transferability of findings, and to trace the origins of myths to debunk them. Additionally, general information about the characteristics of low frequency sound, its production, measurement, and difficulties in experimental research is given to avoid mistakes in future research.

Effects of high-intensity infrasound on liver lipid content of rats

“…Infrasound is a mechanical vibration wave with a frequency range below 20 Hz, originated by natural phenomena and man-made sources, such as industrial installations, low-speed machinery and music [ 24 , 25 ]. Due to its wavelength, infrasound can propagate over very large distances without being reflected or absorbed by obstacles and is hardly attenuated through dissipation [ 24 ]. As such, infrasound can induce body vibrations and resonance in body cavities, thus affecting internal systems and organs [ 26 ].…”

“…However, there is a common misconception about the inaudibility of infrasound since sounds with lower frequencies can still be heard with an increase of the sound pressure level [ 24 , 26 ]. Higher pressure levels, as the ones used in our study, can elicit both body vibration and hearing response from the animal model used [ 32 , 33 ].…”

Efficacy, Treatment Characteristics, and Biopsychological Mechanisms of Music-Listening Interventions in Reducing Pain (MINTREP): Study Protocol of a Three-Armed Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Nowadays, diverse commercial and free-to-listen compositions with frequency-modulated music are available that are claimed to exert a positive influence on the cognitive, emotional, social, and physiological domains of their consumers. Typically, these diverse programmes are based on different ideas about which frequencies might be particularly beneficial or detrimental to the human body and brain, with each programme thus justifying its specific approach of frequency modulation (e.g., amplification or filtering of certain frequencies) ( 73 ). Besides anecdotal evidence on the potential benefits of these methods, scientific research within this field is just in its infancy.…”

Book Review: Paul C. Jasen, Low end theory: Bass, bodies and the materiality of sound

“…Though some of the phenomena Jasen discusses here are included in Jörg H. Mühlhans’ list of “Myths About Infrasound” (2017, pp. 275–277), they perfectly illustrate Jasen’s overall approach and what he – following Brian Massumi (2002) – calls insistence or the ability of material intensities (in this case, low frequency soundwaves) “to push themselves into perception and consciousness, [… whereby insistence] describes both the self-activity of matter and its ingress into the social” (p. 36).…”

“…I don’t dare to decide who is right: Mühlhans who makes clear that later studies testing Tandy and Lawrence’s theory yielded “hardly any significant findings that could support [their] claims” (Mühlhans 2017, p. 276), or Jasen who cites the article as an important contribution to “a minor science of the sonic body” (p. 44), a term he uses alternately with “myth-science” or “nomad science” and – following Deleuze/Guattari – opposes to a Royal Science that Mühlhans’s article surely is representative of. Royal or “institutionalized science employs transcendent Method to extract generalizable laws from nature [whereas] a more ambulant science” that Jasen deems more appropriate to investigate how low frequency sound affects the sonic body “works intuitively and contingently, pursuing variation and anomaly, inhabiting materiality and following its singular flows” (p. 15).…”