It was not possible to prove the theoretical potential of subliminal audio from what data or research had been published… until now.
Up until a few years ago, there was little evidence that subliminal music actually worked. Even the theories presented were quite questionable. Most of the proof presented was via listener’s statement. Also, there were not much study and data existing on the masking methods being used in commercially available subliminal music.
However, in recent times, the effectiveness of this subliminal music has been proven by professionals in the medical industry. In fact, its effectiveness has proven to be so remarkable that it has stirred interest within researchers and academicians who had previously sought to debunk the myth behind subliminal music.
Now, a large volume of data exists in the field of dichotic listening and tachistoscopic subliminal techniques. As a subsequent effect, the popularity of subliminal music has once again grown amongst people who would be considered consumers.
Recent studies conducted on the effectiveness of subliminal music have resulted in significant, favorable outcome. There is however a slight controversy that states the true faithfuls in the subliminal music say the idea is classified and only few possess the technique which is functional, and that this method remains to be tested and again raises the questions about all the tall claims made for subliminal musics and backmasking i.e. backward messages in music.
Henley and Dixon, 2 of the handful researchers in this particular field, conducted a test to observe the subliminal music effect. The aim of this experimentation was to monitor the role of the laterality difference in aural subliminal perception. The method was to mask subliminal messages with music.
The trial results of the Henley and Dixon experiment were replicated by Mykel and Dayes. The method they used was to utilize music as a mask once and later on another group no music was used. The outcome were unclear at best. The subliminal group did recognize more than the control group, but the case was not the same when grouped used impartial judges.
This outcome made the kind of music used for masking under suspicion. Benes team found that soft music gave more relevant imagery than rock music, but images were not pertinent or connected to the subliminal words. The control group when subjected to masking with music, produced more imagery than the subliminal group.
It is because of such results that there is doubt and lack of attention in this area of subliminal technology, thereby producing a large gap. Nevertheless, advertisers have taken full use of this gap by stating that research has not disproven the efficacy that they assert.
The field of auditory masking for subliminal music has received even less favorable review; the assumed reason being that there is no concrete way to bring subliminal stimulus. Pundits also claim that it is difficult to optimize the sound volume level and more tricky is to acquire a good fidelity on mass produced subliminal music.
There is a small section of people who support audio subliminal influence, claiming that results can only occur when subjects are in a particular frame of mind. However, no solid evidential research supports this particular claim. On the other hand, visual subliminals do not need this hence its significance is even more in doubt.
However, despite the difference in opinions, subliminal technology is still on the rise, and there has to be a better education of its benefits to the masses, because subliminal technology can improve one’s life when one fully accepts and embraces it.