Cited by 362Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsMind wandering and attention

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 42 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Impact of mindfulness on the neural responses to emotional pictures in experienced and beginner meditators

Open access

Abstract

There is mounting evidence that mindfulness meditation is beneficial for the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, yet little is known regarding the neural mechanisms through which mindfulness modulates emotional responses. Thus, a central objective of this functional magnetic resonance imaging study was to investigate the effects of mindfulness on the neural responses to emotionally laden stimuli. Another major goal of this study was to examine the impact of the extent of mindfulness training on the brain mechanisms supporting the processing of emotional stimuli. Twelve experienced (with over 1000. h of practice) and 10 beginner meditators were scanned as they viewed negative, positive, and neutral pictures in a mindful state and a non-mindful state of awareness. Results indicated that the Mindful condition attenuated emotional intensity perceived from pictures, while brain imaging data suggested that this effect was achieved through distinct neural mechanisms for each group of participants. For experienced meditators compared with beginners, mindfulness induced a deactivation of default mode network areas (medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices) across all valence categories and did not influence responses in brain regions involved in emotional reactivity during emotional processing. On the other hand, for beginners relative to experienced meditators, mindfulness induced a down-regulation of the left amygdala during emotional processing. These findings suggest that the long-term practice of mindfulness leads to emotional stability by promoting acceptance of emotional states and enhanced present-moment awareness, rather than by eliciting control over low-level affective cerebral systems from higher-order cortical brain regions. These results have implications for affect-related psychological disorders. © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.001

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

7 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

12 of 42 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 56 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
51 of 51
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little is known regarding the brain mechanisms through which mindfulness meditation modulates the processing of emotional stimuli.

    “Yet to date, little is known regarding the brain mechanisms through which mindfulness meditation modulates the processing of emotional stimuli.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Mindful condition successfully induced a state of mindfulness in participants.

    “mindfulness induced a deactivation of the amygdala during the processing of negative and positive emotional stimuli for beginners relative to experienced meditators.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed group differences in brain activity and emotional intensity are attributable to long-term mindfulness meditation experience rather than pre-existing differences between groups.

    “These results indicate that extensive mindfulness practice promotes emotional stability and modulates the activity in a number of brain regions implicated in the neural responses to emotional stimuli.”
3 of 3

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 18) = 0.45, p = .747

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .747 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .511. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .747 · recomputed p = .511

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 18) = 1.94, p = .17

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .17 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .181. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .17 · recomputed p = .181

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 18) = 5.40, p = .031

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .031 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .032. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .032

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 18) = 0.72, p = .382

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .382 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .407. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .382 · recomputed p = .407

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 18) = 6.23, p = .015

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .015 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .022. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .022

5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 18) = 0.72reported p = .382 · recomputed p = .407

    “F(1, 18) = 0.72, p = .382”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 18) = 0.45reported p = .747 · recomputed p = .511

    “F(1, 18) = 0.45, p = .747”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 18) = 1.94reported p = .17 · recomputed p = .181

    “F(1, 18) = 1.94, p = .17”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 18) = 6.23reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1, 18) = 6.23, p = .015”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 18) = 5.4reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1, 18) = 5.40, p = .031”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 0.63reported p = .438 · recomputed p = .438

    “F(1, 18) = 0.63, p = .438”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 6.23reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1, 18) = 6.23, p = .022”

7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Talairach, 1988, Stereotaxic localization of central gray nuclei, Neurochirurgia (Stuttg), 1, 88

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–113 of 113

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, V. A., Grant, J., Daneault, V., Scavone, G., Breton, E., Roffe-Vidal, S., Courtemanche, J., Lavarenne, A. S., & Beauregard, M.
Affiliations
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Beauregard, Mario
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
1524-1533
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123696958
Cited by
362
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 17
FWCI
25.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, emotional picture processing, default mode network, amygdala, medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, mood disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Meditation

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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