Cited by 757Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Mental Training Affects Distribution of Limited Brain Resources

Open access
Slagter, Heleen A, Lutz, Antoine, Greischar, Lawrence L, Francis, Andrew D, Nieuwenhuis, Sander, Davis, James M, Davidson, Richard J·2007·PLoS Biology

Abstract

The information processing capacity of the human mind is limited, as is evidenced by the so-called "attentional-blink" deficit: When two targets (T1 and T2) embedded in a rapid stream of events are presented in close temporal proximity, the second target is often not seen. This deficit is believed to result from competition between the two targets for limited attentional resources. Here we show, using performance in an attentional-blink task and scalp-recorded brain potentials, that meditation, or mental training, affects the distribution of limited brain resources. Three months of intensive mental training resulted in a smaller attentional blink and reduced brain-resource allocation to the first target, as reflected by a smaller T1-elicited P3b, a brain-potential index of resource allocation. Furthermore, those individuals that showed the largest decrease in brain-resource allocation to T1 generally showed the greatest reduction in attentional-blink size. These observations provide novel support for the view that the ability to accurately identify T2 depends upon the efficient deployment of resources to T1. The results also demonstrate that mental training can result in increased control over the distribution of limited brain resources. Our study supports the idea that plasticity in brain and mental function exists throughout life and illustrates the usefulness of systematic mental training in the study of the human mind.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050138

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Mindfulness meditation has been independently found to improve attention, self-judgment, and clinical symptoms (the three psychological barriers).

    “Mindfulness meditation has been independently found to improve all three of these psychological barriers.”

    From Effects of Mindfulness Training on Body Awareness to Sexual Stimuli: Implications for Female Sexual Dysfunction (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Author Summary reports improved performance on an attentional-blink task after intensive meditation, supporting the attention component. The Introduction describes non-reactivity to judgments as an aim of Vipassana practice, but does not report an improvement in self-judgment. Materials and Methods says participants had no history of mental or neurological illness; the paper does not report improvement in clinical symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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].”

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
Slagter, H. A., Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Francis, A. D., Nieuwenhuis, S., Davis, J. M., & Davidson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Davidson, Richard J
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2007-05-08
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e138
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W1987937684
Cited by
757
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 43
FWCI
40.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Mind and Life Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01at002114-03)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50-MH069315-03, P50MH069315, MH069315)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA022471)
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (U01AT002114-01A1)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (U01-AT002114, U01AT002114-01A1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
attentional blink, mental training, meditation, P3b, event-related potentials, attentional competition, cognitive plasticity, information processing capacity
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Case-Control Studies, Meditation, Attentional Blink

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