Cited by 277Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMind wandering and attentionCognitive Abilities and Testing

Greater efficiency in attentional processing related to mindfulness meditation

van den Hurk, Paul A. M., Giommi, Fabio, Gielen, Stan C., Speckens, Anne E. M., Barendregt, Henk P.·2010·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

In this study, attentional processing in relation to mindfulness meditation was investigated. Since recent studies have suggested that mindfulness meditation may induce improvements in attentional processing, we have tested 20 expert mindfulness meditators in the attention network test. Their performance was compared to that of 20 age- and gender-matched controls. In addition to attentional network analyses, overall attentional processing was analysed by means of efficiency scores (i.e., accuracy controlled for reaction time). Better orienting and executive attention (reflected by smaller differences in either reaction time or error score, respectively) were observed in the mindfulness meditation group. Furthermore, extensive mindfulness meditation appeared to be related to a reduction of the fraction of errors for responses with the same reaction time. These results provide new insights into differences in attentional processing related to mindfulness meditation and suggest the possibility of increasing the efficiency in attentional processing by extensive mental training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470210903249365

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A considerable number of studies have empirically documented better performance during attentional tasks in meditators compared to controls.

    “A considerable number of studies have empirically documented better performance during attentional tasks in meditators compared to controls [25–28].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Hurk, P. A. M., Giommi, F., Gielen, S. C., Speckens, A. E. M., & Barendregt, H. P.
Affiliations
  • Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior–Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2010-06
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
1168-1180
ISSN
  • 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
OpenAlex
W2106303859
Cited by
277
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 21
FWCI
12.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, attentional processes, attentional orienting, executive attention, attentional efficiency, reaction time, error scores, mental training
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, 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.

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