Original Article

Perceptual and Motor Skills

0(0) 1–13
Effects of Preferred ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
and Nonpreferred sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0031512520928244
Warm-Up Music on journals.sagepub.com/home/pms

Exercise Performance

Morgan C. Karow1,
Rebecca R. Rogers1,
Joseph A. Pederson1,
Tyler D. Williams1,
Mallory R. Marshall1, and
Christopher G. Ballmann1

Abstract
This study investigated the effects of preferred and non-preferred warm-up music
listening conditions on subsequent exercise performance. A total of 12 physically
active male and female participants engaged in a crossover, counterbalanced research
design in which they completed exercise trials after 3 different warm-up experiences
of (a) no music (NM), (b) preferred music (PREF), and (c) nonpreferred music
(NON-PREF). Participants began warming up by rowing at 50% of of age-predicted
heart rate maximum (HRmax) for 5 minutes while exposed to the three music
conditions. Immediately following the warm-up and cessation of any music, partic-
ipants completed a 2000-m rowing time trial as fast as possible. Relative power
output, trial time, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and motivation were
analyzed. Results indicated that, compared with NM, relative power output was
significantly higher (p ¼ .018), trial time was significantly lower (p ¼ .044), and
heart rate was significantly higher (p ¼ .032) during the PREF but not the NON-
PREF condition. Rating of perceived exertion was not altered, regardless of music

1
Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
The first two authors contributed equally to this study.
Corresponding Author:
Christopher G. Ballmann, Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Dr., Birmingham,
AL 35229, United States.
Email: cballman@samford.edu
2 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

condition (p > .05). Motivation to exercise was higher during the PREF condition
versus the NM (p ¼ .001) and NON-PREF (p < .001) conditions. Listening to pre-
ferred warm-up music improved subsequent exercise performance compared with
no music, while nonpreferred music did not impart ergogenic benefit.

Keywords
rowing, power output, rating of perceived exertion, motivation

Introduction
Music has been widely studied for its ergogenic properties in a variety of
exercise modes (Karageorghis et al., 1996; Rendi et al., 2008; Schwartz
et al., 1990). Improvements may be due to both physiological and psycholog-
ical mechanisms, ultimately leading to enhancements in exercise capacity.
Listening to music during exercise has been shown to increase heart rate,
plasma catecholamines, concentric velocity, and to augment heart rate vari-
ability (Ballmann et al., 2018; Yamashita et al., 2006; Yamamoto et al., 2003).
Furthermore, previous evidence has reported that listening to music during
exercise causes dissociation from exertion, increased motivation, improved
mood, and increased arousal, leading to improved performance (Ballmann
et al., 2019; Hayakawa et al., 2000; Potteiger et al., 2000). Music preference
has been shown to be a large factor in determining ergogenic potential of
listening to music during exercise (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019; Nakamura
et al., 2010). However, the influence of preexercise music preference on sub-
sequent exercise performance is unclear.
Listening to music preexercise or during a warm-up has been studied in var-
ious types of exercise with mixed results (Chtourou et al., 2012; Smirmaul et al.,
2015). Chtourou et al. (2012) showed that listening to warm-up music prior to
an anaerobic sprint test increased power output. Smirmaul et al. (2015) reported
that preexercise music improved 200-m swimming time trials and increased the
levels of motivation to exercise. Self-selected motivational warm-up music has
also been shown to improve short-term maximal exercise performance in soccer
players (Belkhir et al., 2019). However, other investigations have refuted these
findings, showing no performance improvements with preexercise music
(Eliakim et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2019; Yamamoto et al., 2003). Eliakim et al.
(2007) reported no changes in anaerobic output or fatigue index during consec-
utive Wingate anaerobic tests after listening to warm-up music. Yamamoto et al.
(2003) showed that listening to music preexercise increased plasma epinephrine
and norepinephrine levels but did not result in improvements in 45 second
Karow et al. 3

supramaximal sprint cycling performance. Thus, findings regarding the contri-

bution of preexercise or warm-up music to performance enhancement have been
mixed and equivocal. However, no investigators have studied possible effects of
warm-up music preference on performance resulting in the need for further
investigation.
Music preference has been an important determinant of benefits to music
listening during exercise (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019; Nakamura et al., 2010).
Nakamura et al. (2010) reported that preferred music enhanced cycling perfor-
mance and decreased rating of perceived exertion (RPE), while nonpreferred
music did not confer improvements. Ballmann et al. (2018) reported increased
repetition volume, bar velocity, and power output during bench press while
listening to preferred music during the exercise compared with nonpreferred
music. Furthermore, a follow-up study showed that listening to preferred
versus nonpreferred music during repeated Wingate anaerobic tests increased
motivation and decreased RPE, albeit without improvements in anaerobic per-
formance (Ballmann et al., 2019). There is also previous evidence that preferred
music increases feelings of energy and is more stimulating during exercise
(Lingham & Theorell, 2009). Recent physiological research has shown that pre-
ferred music increases heart rate variability and parasympathetic tone following
moderate intensity exercise indicating that music preference may play a role in
the autonomic response postexercise (Archana & Mukilan, 2016). While intrigu-
ing, most investigations on music preference and exercise have been conducted
with music played throughout the exercise bout, leaving less evident how warm-
up music preference affects ergogenic potential.
From a practical standpoint, listening to music during competition may not
be feasible for many competitors, thus necessitating listening to preexercise or
warm-up music instead. However, it is currently unknown how music preference
influences the efficacy of warm-up music on exercise performance. Thus, the
purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of preferred, nonpreferred,
and no warm-up music on rowing exercise performance, heart rate, RPE, and
motivation. It was hypothesized that listening to preferred warm-up music
would result in better performance, higher exercise heart rate, lower RPE,
and greater motivation compared with nonpreferred and no warm-up music
conditions.

Method
Participants
A total of 12 physically active male (n ¼ 6) and female (n ¼ 6) participants were
recruited via email and word of mouth to participate in this study. This sample
size was based on a power analysis using G-power 3.1.9.6 software assuming an
effect size (ES) of 0.5, alpha ¼ .05, beta ¼ 0.8, correlation of repeated
4 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Table 1. Description of Characteristics Male (n ¼ 6) and

Female (n ¼ 6) Participants.

Descriptive characteristics (n ¼ 12)

Characteristic Mean  SD

Age (years) 21.1  1.0

Height (cm) 174.3  7.1
Weight (kg) 72.5  11.5
Body mass index (kgm–2) 23.5  4.9

measures ¼ .05, yielding a sample size of 10. We chose 12 to be consistent with

prior research in this area (Ballmann et al., 2018). Participants’ descriptive
characteristics can be seen in Table 1. Participants were considered physically
active if they accrued at least 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity exer-
cise (Medicine ACoS, 2017). Suitability for exercise was determined using a
modified physical activity questionnaire that excluded those participants report-
ing an upper or lower extremity injury in the past six months, metabolic disease,
musculoskeletal disease, cardiovascular disease, or any health problem limiting
exercise capacity. Participants were asked to refrain from caffeine, nicotine, and
alcohol a minimum of 12 hours prior to each visit. Written informed consent
was obtained from all the participants prior to their engagement in the study,
and all procedures and experimentation were approved by the local institutional
review board.

Music Preference and Familiarization

During their first laboratory visit, participants completed a music preference
survey adapted from previous investigations on music preference and exercise
performance (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019). The survey consisted of six different
genres: rap/hip hop, country, rock and roll, pop, country, and religious.
Participants ranked these genres from most preferred to least preferred. For
preferred song selection, participants self-selected any song within their top
preferred genre as long as the tempo was above 120 bpm to ensure the music
was stimulatory in nature (Waterhouse et al., 2010). For the nonpreferred music
selection, researchers selected a similar tempo-matched song from the nonpre-
ferred genre. Researchers selected the song to minimize the chance that partic-
ipants would select a song they most preferred in the least preferred genre. All
music was played through one set of headphones and device, with volume set at
the same level for all trials and participants (Ballmann et al., 2019). Prior to the
first exercise bout, participants were familiarized with the rowing ergometer.
Briefly, experimenters demonstrated proper form to participants and then
Karow et al. 5

participants completed 2-3 practice strokes, during which their form was cor-
rected as needed.

Protocol
In this crossover, counterbalanced design, participants completed three visits in
which they were exposed in counterbalanced fashion to three different warm-up
music conditions: (a) no music (NM), (b) preferred music (PREF), and (c)
nonpreferred music (NON-PREF). Each different visit was separated by at
least 48 hours. For the warm-up, participants exercised on a rowing ergometer
(Concept 2, Morrisville, VT) at 50% of their age-predicted HRmax for five
minutes while in a music condition as described earlier. Participants were
unaware of any hypotheses related to the music and what music they would
be listening to until commencement of the warm-up. Heart rate was monitored
using a polar H10 heart rate monitor (Polar Electro, Bethpage, NY).
Immediately upon completion and stoppage of warm-up exercise and music,
motivation to exercise was measured using a visual analog scale (Ballmann
et al., 2018). Participants were asked to mark how motivated they felt to exercise
on a 100 mm line ranging from no motivation to most motivation ever experi-
enced. Immediately following this, participants rowed 2,000 m as quickly as
possible. At every minute, data were collected for RPE(Borg scale), heart
rate, and power output. Trial time was collected at the end of 2,000 m.
Participants were blinded to power output, time, heart rate, and distance
throughout the exercise bout.

Statistical Analysis
All data were analyzed using Jamovi software (Version 0.9). A repeated meas-
ures analysis of variance was used to statistically analyze all data with a Tukey
post hoc analysis as needed to further describe significant results. Estimates of
ES for main effects were calculated using eta squared (g2) and between condi-
tions using Cohen’s d ESs and interpreted results as 0.2—small; 0.5—moderate;
0.8—large (Cohen, 1988; Fritz et al., 2012). Statistical significance for inference
tests was set at p  .05 a priori. All data are presented as means (M) and stan-
dard deviations (SD).

Results
Exercise performance variables are presented in Figure 1. For relative power
output (wattskg1), there was a main effect for condition (p ¼ .023; g2 ¼ 0.29).
Post hoc analysis revealed that relative power output was significantly higher in
the PREF versus NM condition (MNM ¼ 1.84 wattskg1, SD ¼ 0.57;
MPREF ¼ 2.11 wattskg1, SD ¼ 0.46; p ¼ .018; ES ¼ 0.52). There were no signif-
icant differences between NM and NON-PREF (MNON-PREF ¼ 1.99
6 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

A B
3.0
* 600.0 *
Relave Power ( was·kg-1)

2.5
500.0
2.0
NM 400.0 NM

Time (s)
1.5 NON-PREF NON-PREF
300.0
PREF PREF
1.0 200.0

0.5 100.0

0.0 0.0

Figure 1. A: Average relative power output (wattskg–1). B: Time to completion of exercise

trial (s). Data are presented as mean  SD. * indicates significantly different from no music
(NM) condition (p < .05). PREF ¼ preferred music; NON-PREF ¼ nonpreferred music.

wattskg1  0.43; p ¼ .237; ES ¼ 0.30) or PREF and NON-PREF (p ¼ .401;

ES ¼ 0.26). For trial time(s), there was a main effect for condition (p ¼ .050;
g2 ¼ 0.23). Participants completed the 2000-m row significantly faster during
the PREF versus NM condition (MNM ¼ 559 s, SD ¼ 80; MPREF ¼ 534 s,
SD ¼ 61; p ¼ .044; ES ¼ 0.36). There were no significant differences between
NM and NON-PREF conditions (MNON-PREF ¼ 542, SD ¼ 60; p ¼ .216;
ES ¼ 0.24) or PREF and NON-PREF (p ¼ .681; ES ¼ 0.13).
Average heart rate and RPE over the exercise bout and reported motivation to
exercise are presented in Figure 2. For average heart rate (bpm), there was a main
effect for condition (p ¼ .032; g2 ¼ 0.057). Post hoc analysis showed that average
heart rate was significantly higher in the PREF versus the NM condition (M NM ¼
152 bpm, SD ¼ 16; MPREF ¼ 159 bpm, SD ¼ 11; p ¼ .032; ES ¼ 0.46). There
were no significant differences between NM and NON-PREF (MNON-PREF ¼
157 bpm, SD ¼ 17; p ¼ .797; ES ¼ 0.31) or PREF and NON-PREF (p ¼ .119;
ES ¼ 0.14). There were no main effects for condition for average RPE
(MNM ¼ 14.5, SD ¼ 1.2; MPREF ¼ 14.0, SD ¼ 1.9, MNON-PREF ¼ 13.8,
SD ¼ 1.4; p ¼ .172; g2 ¼ 0.148). For motivation (mm), there was a main effect
for condition (p < .001; g2 ¼ 0.55). PREF music resulted in significantly higher moti-
vation versus NM (MNM ¼ 45 mm, SD ¼ 15; MPREF ¼ 66 mm, SD ¼ 12; p ¼ .001;
ES ¼ 1.45) and NON-PREF (MNON-PREF ¼ 42 mm, SD ¼ 16; ES ¼ 1.6). No differ-
ences existed between NM and NON-PREF conditions (p ¼ .831).

Discussion
Music has been extensively reported to possess ergogenic benefits during endur-
ance, sprint, and strength exercise (Biagini et al., 2012; Karageorghis et al., 1996;
Karow et al. 7

A B
190 * 20
18
170
16
Heart Rate (bpm)

150 14
NM 12 NM

RPE
130
NON-PREF 10 NON-PREF
110 8
PREF PREF
90 6
4
70
2
50 0

C
100
90
80 *#
70
Motivation (mm)

60 NM
50 NON-PREF
40 PREF
30
20
10
0

Figure 2. A: Average heart rate (bpm) during exercise. B: Average rating of percevied
exertion C: Motivation to exercise (mm) as measured through a visual analog scale. Data are
presented as mean  SD. * indicates significantly different from no music (NM) 5 condition
(p < .05). # indicates significantly different from nonpreferred music (NON-PREF) 6 condition
(p < .001). PREF ¼ preferred music.

Schwartz et al., 1990). Preference of music listened to during exercise has been
shown to augment performance enhancement (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019).
Overall, preexercise and warm-up music have been shown to improve perfor-
mance, although some disparities exist in the literature (Chtourou et al., 2012;
Fox et al., 2019). However, no studies to date have determined the influence of
NM, PREF, and NON-PREF warm-up music on subsequent exercise perfor-
mance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of PREF
and NON-PREF warm-up music on rowing performance, heart rate, RPE, and
motivation. Results with 12 physically active young adults revealed that PREF
warm-up music increased average heart rate, motivation, and improved exercise
performance compared with NM, while NON-PREF music resulted in no sig-
nificant changes. ESs, although interpreted as small, favored PREF compared
with NON-PREF for all variables. RPE was unchanged regardless of condition.
8 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

These results have important implications for choosing music based on partic-
ipant preference prior to exercise in order to optimize subsequent exercise
performance.
Relative power output over the rowing time trial was higher with preferred
warm-up music compared with no music. This is consistent with previous find-
ings on warm-up music and short-term anaerobic exercise. Previous evidence
has shown increased power output during a 30-second Wingate Anaerobic Test
following a 10-minute warm-up while listening to music albeit without control
for preference (Chtourou et al., 2012). Also supporting our findings with pre-
ferred warm-up music, Belkhir et al. (2019) recently reported that diurnal dec-
rement in short-term maximal exercise was attenuated while listening to
motivational music, while nonmotivational music did not impart the same ben-
efits (Belkhir et al., 2019). Present findings are supported by these findings in
that similar to nonmotivational music, listening to nonpreferred warm-up music
did not enhance power output while improvements were found after preferred
music warm-up. While physiological mechanisms responsible for changes in
power output were not measured in this study, our data support previous find-
ings that concentric velocity is enhanced with preferred music (Ballmann et al.,
2018). In regard to pretask music, previous evidence has also shown that intense
music before reaction tests resulted in increased neural activity, specifically in
parts of the brain responsible for motor control (Bishop et al., 2014). Since
modulation of neural activation may be a factor in exercise performance
(Chambers et al., 2009), preferred warm-up music may have resulted in optimal
neural activity, leading to improved motor control and power output. However,
it should be cautioned that this study did not measure any indices of neural
activation leaving this partially speculative. In addition to improvements in
power output, time to completion of the 2000-m rowing trial was faster
during the preferred versus no music condition, while the nonpreferred music
condition did not affect trial time, relative to the no music condition. This is
supported by prior research showing that listening to upbeat motivational music
at the beginning of exercise improved 5 km running performance, whereas
administration of music late into the time trial did not result in performance
benefits (Lima-Silva et al., 2012). Novel to the present investigation is that pre-
ferred warm-up music improved aerobic exercise performance to a greater
degree than nonpreferred music. This contrasts with most previous literature
focusing on warm-up music and anaerobic exercise performance. However, pre-
sent data using aerobic exercise are supported by Smirmaul et al. (2015) who
showed an improved swimming time trial performance when athletes listened to
pretask music (Smirmaul et al., 2015). How warm-up music preference influen-
ces various types and modalities of exercise other than aerobic rowing remains
undetermined, leaving a need for future investigations in this area.
Currently, preferred warm-up music resulted in higher average heart rates
compared to no music, while nonpreferred warm-up music failed to show this
Karow et al. 9

benefit. Not surprisingly, our findings of higher heart rates accompanying

increased power output are well supported by previous literature (Arts &
Kuipers, 1994; Grazzi et al., 1999). However, current data are in part refuted
by others who found no differences in heart rate from listening to preferred
music during incremental exercise (Nikbakhsh & Zafari, 2012). Disparities in
these separate study findings may be due to methodological differences in that
Nikbakhsh and Zafari (2012) used standardized workloads throughout the exer-
cise bout and did not allow for participants to control their pace and exercise
intensity. However, other investigations utilizing warm-up music showed higher
heart rate during a warm-up at a standardized workload compared with no
music (Eliakim et al., 2007). Collectively, our findings suggest that increases
in heart rate with preferred music may be reflective of increases in work
output rather than other factors albeit the mechanisms by which warm-up
music influences exercise heart rate are not fully understood. Interestingly,
Yamamoto et al. (2003) showed that upbeat preexercise music increased
blood catecholamine concentrations (Yamamoto et al., 2003). While not con-
firmed in the current investigation, preferred music may have influenced cate-
cholamines differently than nonpreferred and no music conditions leading to
alterations in sympatho-stimulation and heart rate. However, follow-up inves-
tigations directly measuring catecholamines are necessary to confirm this
possibility.
Listening to music during exercise has been repeatedly shown to cause a
dissociation effect during exercise resulting in lower RPE (Karageorghis &
Terry, 1997; Potteiger et al., 2000). Music preference has been shown to mod-
ulate this effect (Ballmann et al., 2019; Nakamura et al., 2010). However, some
research has shown little to no effect on RPE during exercise with warm-up
music (Chtourou et al., 2012), and current results are consistent with these no
RPE effect findings. Differences between this study and those of previous music
preference investigations may be due to differences in when music was played in
these studies. Most investigations reporting lower RPE with preferred and non-
preferred music had participants listen to music throughout the entire exercise
bout (Ballmann et al., 2019; Nakamura et al., 2010) while our participants lis-
tened solely during the warm-up. Thus, warm-up music preference may have less
impact on dissociation during exercise since it does not provide a continual
distraction or alternative focus for attention during exercise. Another consider-
ation of this study’s design, compared with that of previous investigations, was
the duration of the exercise bout. Previous investigations reported decreased
RPE following a warm-up while listening to music during a short
(120 seconds) circuit-type resistance exercise bout (Arazi et al., 2015).
Participants in this study exercised on average for 540 seconds making it pos-
sible that potency of disassociation effects, if present, wore off as time pro-
gressed. However, this idea is not completely supported by previous findings
in that warm-up music was shown to have no effect on RPE during 30 to
10 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

45 seconds supramaximal sprint tests (Chtourou et al., 2012; Fox et al., 2019).
More study on how RPE changes during different duration and modes of exer-
cise is warranted. Important to this study, preferred warm-up music increased
motivation compared with nonpreferred and no music warm-up conditions.
Listening to preferred music during exercise has been reported to increase moti-
vation in multiple modes of exercise including resistance and anaerobic sprint
exercise (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019). However, the effects that warm-up music
has on motivation are less clear. Backing present findings, Belkhir et al. (2019)
noted that soccer player participants listening to motivational warm-up music
improved their 5 m shuttle performance. Thus, it appears that motivation from
preferred music may be a key mechanism for increasing effort and exercise
performance regardless of whether it is listened to during exercise or warm-
up. It should be mentioned, however, that motivation in the current investiga-
tion was analyzed immediately following the warm-up and not throughout the
exercise bout. Consequently, whether warm-up music preference continuously
influences motivation during exercise is unknown and should be the focus of
subsequent studies.
While this study presents novel information on warm-up music preference
and exercise performance, there were several limitations to this study. Only
aerobic rowing exercise was used to test these effects, and previous research
has shown that music preference may affect various types of exercise differ-
ently (Ballmann et al., 2018, 2019; Nakamura et al., 2010). Thus, how pref-
erence of warm-up music influences other modes of exercise is still unknown,
leaving a need for future research. Also, only a single bout of exercise was
used in this study design, while, practically, many athletes listening to warm-
up music will subsequently engage in successive repeated bouts of exercise.
Given that previous evidence has suggested the music preference may influence
repeated bouts of exercise differently (Ballmann et al., 2019), findings may not
be generalizable to training where repetitive bouts of exercise are performed.
Finally, time of day of exercise trials was not strictly controlled for. A recent
investigation reported that different times of day may impact the effectiveness
of warm-up music (Belkhir et al., 2019). While multiple other investigations
have used the same approach as this study (Ballmann et al., 2018; Dyrlund &
Wininger, 2008;), the possibility that strict control over time of day may alter
results cannot be excluded.

Conclusion
This study presents new information on warm-up music preference and associ-
ated responses during subsequent exercise. Data suggest that preferred warm-up
music improved rowing performance while also increasing motivation and aver-
age heart rate compared with no music. However, nonpreferred music did not
improve performance or any other outcomes. Future studies should investigate
Karow et al. 11

the preference of warm-up music and the impact it has on both repeated bouts
and different types of exercise.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. John Petrella for his support with this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Christopher G. Ballmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8894

References
Arazi, H., Asadi, A., & Purabed, M. (2015). Physiological and psychophysical responses
to listening to music during warm-up and circuit-type resistance exercise in strength
trained men. Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015, 389831.
Archana, R., & Mukilan, R. (2016). Beneficial effect of preferential music on exercise
induced changes in heart rate variability. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research:
JCDR, 10(5), CC09.
Arts, F., & Kuipers, H. (1994). The relation between power output, oxygen uptake and
heart rate in male athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 15(5), 228–231.
Ballmann, C. G., Maynard, D. J., Lafoon, Z. N., Marshall, M. R., Williams, T. D., &
Rogers, R. R. (2019). Effects of listening to preferred versus non-preferred music on
repeated wingate anaerobic test performance. Sports (Basel), 7(8), E185.
Ballmann, C. G., McCullum, M. J., Rogers, R. R., Marshall, M. M., & Williams, T. D.
(2018). Effects of preferred vs. nonpreferred music on resistance exercise performance.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002981
Belkhir, Y., Rekik, G., Chtourou H., & Souissi, N. (2019). Listening to neutral or self-
selected motivational music during warm-up to improve short-term maximal perfor-
mance in soccer players: Effect of time of day. Physiology & Behavior, 204, 168–173.
Biagini, M. S., Brown, L. E., Coburn, J. W., Judelson, D. A., Statler, T.A., Bottaro, M.,
Tran, T. T., & Longo, N. A. (2012). Effects of self-selected music on strength, explo-
siveness, and mood. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1934–1938.
Bishop, D. T., Wright, M. J., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2014). Tempo and intensity of pre-
task music modulate neural activity during reactive task performance. Psychology of
Music, 42(5), 714–727.
12 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Chambers, E., Bridge, M., & Jones, D. (2009). Carbohydrate sensing in the human
mouth: Effects on exercise performance and brain activity. The Journal of
Physiology, 587(8), 1779–1794.
Chtourou, H., Jarraya, M., Aloui, A., Hammouda, O., & Souissi, N. (2012). The effects
of music during warm-up on anaerobic performances of young sprinters. Science &
Sports, 27(6), e85–e88.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum
Associates.
Dyrlund, A. K., & Wininger, S. R. (2008). The effects of music preference and exercise
intensity on psychological variables. Journal of Music Therapy, 45(2), 114–134.
Eliakim, M., Meckel, Y., Nemet, D., & Eliakim, A. (2007). The effect of music during
warm-up on consecutive anaerobic performance in elite adolescent volleyball players.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(4), 321–325.
Fox, R. P., Michael, T. J., Weideman, C. A., & Hanson, N. J. (2019). Effect of listening
to music during a warmup on anaerobic test performance. Sport Sciences for Health,
15(2), 369–373.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use,
calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1),
2–18.
Grazzi, G., Alfieri, N., Borsetto, C., Casoni, I., Manfredini, F., Mazzoni, G., & Conconi,
F. (1999). The power output/heart rate relationship in cycling: Test standardization
and repeatability. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(10), 1478–1483.
Hayakawa, Y., Takada, K., Miki, H., & Tanaka, K. (2000). Effects of music on mood
during bench stepping exercise. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(1), 307–314.
Karageorghis, C. I., Drew, K. M. & Terry, P. C. (1996). Effects of pretest stimulative and
sedative music on grip strength. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(3 Pt 2), 1347–1352.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (1997). The psychophysical effects of music in sport
and exercise: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 54–68.
Lima-Silva, A. E., Silva-Cavalcante, M., Pires, F. d. O., Bertuzzi, R., Oliveira, R. S. F., &
Bishop, D. (2012). Listening to music in the first, but not the last 1.5 km of a 5-km
running trial alters pacing strategy and improves performance. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 33(10), 813–818.
Lingham, J., & Theorell, T. (2009). Self-selected “favourite” stimulative and sedative
music listening–How does familiar and preferred music listening affect the body?
Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 18(2), 150–166.
Medicine ACoS. (2017). ACSM’s exercise testing and prescription. Lippincott williams &
wilkins.
Nakamura, P. M., Pereira, G., Papini, C. B., Nakamura, F. Y., & Kokubun, E. (2010).
Effects of preferred and nonpreferred music on continuous cycling exercise perfor-
mance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(1), 257–264.
Nikbakhsh, R., & Zafari, A. (2012). Heart rate responses to preferred music during
progressive cycling. Annals of Biological Research, 3(8), 4077–4081.
Potteiger, J. A., Schroeder, J. M., & Goff, K. L. (2000). Influence of music on ratings of
perceived exertion during 20 minutes of moderate intensity exercise. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 91(3 Pt 1), 848–854.
Karow et al. 13

Rendi, M., Szabo, A., & Szab o, T. (2008). Performance enhancement with music in
rowing sprint. The Sport Psychologist, 22(2), 175–182.
Schwartz, S. E., Fernhall, B., & Plowman, S. A. (1990). Effects of music on exercise
performance. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 10(9), 312–316.
Smirmaul, B., Dos, R. S., & Da, L. S. N. (2015). Pre-task music improves swimming
performance. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 55(12), 1445–1451.
Waterhouse, J., Hudson, P., & Edwards, B. (2010) Effects of music tempo upon sub-
maximal cycling performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,
20(4), 662–669.
Yamamoto, T., Ohkuwa, T., Itoh, H., Kitoh, M., Terasawa, J., Tsuda, T., Kitagawa, S.,
& Sato, Y. (2003). Effects of pre-exercise listening to slow and fast rhythm music on
supramaximal cycle performance and selected metabolic variables. Archives of
Physiology and Biochemistry, 111(3), 211–214.
Yamashita, S., Iwai, K., Akimoto, T., Sugawara, J., & Kono, I. (2006). Effects of music
during exercise on RPE, heart rate and the autonomic nervous system. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 46(3), 425–430.

Author Biographies
Morgan C. Karow earned her Bachelors of Science in Health Science from Samford University.
Findings from this investigation were a part of her senior undergraduate thesis.

Rebecca R. Rogers earned her Bachelors of Science in Health Science from Samford University.
Findings from this investigation were a part of her senior undergraduate thesis.

Joseph A. Pederson earned his Doctorate of Philosophy in Sport Management from Texas A&M
University. He serves as the sport administration program coordinator and is an assistant professor
at Samford University where he specializes and has expertise in sport marketing, sport sponsorship,
and social media.

Tyler D. Williams earned his Doctorate of Philosophy in Human Performance at the University of
Alabama. He is an assistant professor and currently serves as the community testing/strength and
conditioning program coordinator at Samford University. He is a certified strength and conditioning
specialist (CSCS) and specializes in velocity-based training, periodization, sport nutrition, and ergo-
genic aids.

Mallory R. Marshall earned her Doctorate of Philosophy in Exercise Physiology at Michigan State
University. She is currently an associate professor at Samford University where she specializes and
has expertise in physical activity during pregnancy and post-partum, physical activity assessment,
and dual-tasking.

Christopher G. Ballmann earned his Doctorate of Philosophy in Exercise Physiology at Auburn

University and completed his Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham in the Division of Cardiovascular Disease in the School of Medicine. He is currently
an assistant professor at Samford University. He specializes and has expertise in cardiac and skeletal
muscle physiology, ergogenic aids, and music and exercise.