Cited by 86Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A Review of Interactive Technologies as Support Tools for the Cultivation of Mindfulness

Sliwinski, Jacek, Katsikitis, Mary, Jones, Christian Martyn·2017·Mindfulness

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-017-0698-x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sliwinski, J., Katsikitis, M., & Jones, C. M.
Affiliations
University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
Corresponding author
Sliwinski, Jacek
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2017-03-09
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
1150-1159
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2594903542
Cited by
86
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
interactive technologies, design guidelines, gamification, personalization, social features, biofeedback, emotion regulation, narrative, ethical dilemmas, perspective taking, prosocial behavior, self-transcendence, self-reflection, embodied experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review