Cited by 148Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control

Follow your breath: respiratory interoceptive accuracy in experienced meditators

Open access
Daubenmier, Jennifer, Sze, Jocelyn, Kerr, Catherine E., Kemeny, Margaret E., Mehling, Wolf·2013·Psychophysiology

Abstract

Attention to internal bodily sensations is a core feature of mindfulness meditation. Previous studies have not detected differences in interoceptive accuracy between meditators and nonmeditators on heartbeat detection and perception tasks. We compared differences in respiratory interoceptive accuracy between meditators and nonmeditators in the ability to detect and discriminate respiratory resistive loads and sustain accurate perception of respiratory tidal volume during nondistracted and distracted conditions. Groups did not differ in overall performance on the detection and discrimination tasks; however, meditators were more accurate in discriminating the resistive load with the lowest ceiling effect. Meditators were also more accurate during the nondistracted tracking task at a lag time of 1 s following the breath. Results provide initial support for the notion that meditators have greater respiratory interoceptive accuracy compared to nonmeditators.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/psyp.12057

Cites

78 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daubenmier, J., Sze, J., Kerr, C. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Mehling, W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Daubenmier, Jennifer
  • Mehling, Wolf
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-22
Volume
50
Issue
8
Pages
777-789
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
OpenAlex
W2151247996
Cited by
148
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4
FWCI
9.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K01AT003459, K01AT004199, K23AT002298)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Keywords
interoceptive accuracy, mindfulness meditation, experienced meditators, attentional distraction
MeSH terms
Adult, Airway Resistance, Attention, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychomotor Performance, Self Concept, Tidal Volume, Respiratory Mechanics, Meditation, Mindfulness

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