Real-time fMRI links subjective experience with brain activity during focused attention
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in brain imaging have improved the measure of neural processes related to perceptual, cognitive and affective functions, yet the relation between brain activity and subjective experience remains poorly characterized. In part, it is a challenge to obtain reliable accounts of participant's experience in such studies. Here we addressed this limitation by utilizing experienced meditators who are expert in introspection. We tested a novel method to link objective and subjective data, using real-time fMRI (rt-fMRI) to provide participants with feedback of their own brain activity during an ongoing task. We provided real-time feedback during a focused attention task from the posterior cingulate cortex, a hub of the default mode network shown to be activated during mind-wandering and deactivated during meditation. In a first experiment, both meditators and non-meditators reported significant correspondence between the feedback graph and their subjective experience of focused attention and mind-wandering. When instructed to volitionally decrease the feedback graph, meditators, but not non-meditators, showed significant deactivation of the posterior cingulate cortex. We were able to replicate these results in a separate group of meditators using a novel step-wise rt-fMRI discovery protocol in which participants were not provided with prior knowledge of the expected relationship between their experience and the feedback graph (i.e., focused attention versus mind-wandering). These findings support the feasibility of using rt-fMRI to link objective measures of brain activity with reports of ongoing subjective experience in cognitive neuroscience research, and demonstrate the generalization of expertise in introspective awareness to novel contexts.
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
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.
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?
Neurophenomenological studies suggest that this may be because of the ability to observe thoughts and emotions rather than being caught up in them.
“and neurophenomenological studies suggest that this may be because of the ability to observe thoughts and emotions rather than being caught up in them [35-37].”
From Clinical Efficacy and Psychological Mechanisms of an App-Based Digital Therapeutic for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes experienced meditators as practiced in monitoring moment-to-moment experience, and the Results distinguish focused attention from mind-wandering and self-referential processing. The paper does not establish that observing thoughts and emotions rather than being caught up in them explains the effect alluded to by “this.” (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 154
- Authors
- Garrison, K. A., Scheinost, D., Worhunsky, P. D., Elwafi, H. M., Thornhill, T. A., Thompson, E., Saron, C., Desbordes, G., Kober, H., Hampson, M., Gray, J. R., Constable, R. T., Papademetris, X., & Brewer, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brewer, Judson A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 81
- Pages
- 110-118
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3729617
- OpenAlex
- W2032187623
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 7.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K12-DA00167, 1R03DA029163-01A1)
- U.S. Veterans Affairs New England Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center
- Jeffrey C. Walker
- Austin Hearst
- 1440 Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- real-time fMRI, subjective experience, focused attention, mind wandering, posterior cingulate cortex, default mode network, meditation, introspective awareness, experienced meditators, neural correlates of attention
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Meditation, Neurofeedback
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