The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Mindfulness Meditation Training Enhance Executive Control? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Over the last years, mindfulness meditation has been claimed to be effective in enhancing several cognitive domains, including executive control. However, these claims have been mostly based on findings pertaining to case-control and cross-sectional studies, which are by nature unable to reveal causal relationships. Aiming to address this issue, we set out to conduct the first quantitative assessment of the literature concerning mindfulness meditation as an enhancer for executive control considering only randomized controlled studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis covering experimental studies testing the effect of mindfulness meditation training on at least one executive control function (working memory, inhibitory control, or cognitive flexibility) in adult samples. Four databases were examined, resulting in the identification of 822 candidate references. After a systematic filtering process, a set of 16 studies was retained for evaluation, of which 13 could be included in a subsequent meta-analysis. We found an average effect size of g = 0.34 [0.16, 0.51], indicating a small-to-medium effect of mindfulness meditation training in enhancing executive control. Effect sizes for individual functions were g = 0.42 [0.10, 0.74] for working memory, g = 0.42 [0.20, 0.63] for inhibitory control, and g = 0.09 [−0.13, 0.31] for cognitive flexibility. Funnel plot asymmetry analysis revealed no evidence of publication bias. Taken together, our findings provide preliminary and moderate yet positive evidence supporting the enhancing effects of mindfulness meditation on executive control. Shortcomings of included studies and considerations for future empirical and meta-analytical research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
(2018) · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.5505/kpd · Cited by 13,703
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Cochrane Collaboration. (2014). Review manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Whitfield, T. J., Barnhofer, T., Acabchuk, R. L., Cohen, A., Lee, M., Schlosser, M., Arenaza‐Urquijo, E. M., Böttcher, A., Britton, W. B., Coll‐Padrós, N., et al. (2021) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09519-y · Cited by 247
Mechanisms underlying training-induced cognitive change
von Bastian, C. C., Belleville, S., Udale, R. C., Reinhartz, A., Essounni, M., & Strobach, T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00001-3 · Cited by 147
Bauer, C. C. C., Rozenkrantz, L., Caballero, C., Nieto-Castañón, A., Scherer, E., West, M. R., Mrazek, M. D., Phillips, D. T., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Whitfield, S. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25197 · Cited by 112
Yakobi, O., Smilek, D., & Danckert, J. (2021) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-020-10177-2 · Cited by 85
Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials
Zainal, N. H., & Newman, M. G. (2023) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2023.2248222 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Cásedas, L., Pirruccio, V., Vadillo, M. A., & Lupiáñez, J.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Granada (ES)
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Cásedas, Luis
- Venue
- Mindfulness
- Published
- 2019-12-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 411-424
- ISSN
- 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2996125253
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- "la Caixa" Foundation (LCF/BQ/ES18/11670002)
- Comunidad de Madrid (2016-T1/SOC-1395)
- Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. (PSI2017-85159-P)
- from the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (PSI2017-84926-P)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- mindfulness meditation, executive function, working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, meditation training, cognitive enhancement, adults
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
