Cited by 766Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mental Training Affects Distribution of Limited Brain Resources

Open access

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.

Overview

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

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Marois, 2005, Trends Cogn Sci, 9, 296
  2. Raymond, 1992, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 18, 849
  3. Ward, 1996, Cogn Psychol, 30, 79
  4. Shapiro, 1997, Trends Cogn Sci, 1, 291
  5. Martens, 2006, J Cogn Neurosci, 18, 1423
  6. Carter, 2005, Curr Biol, 15, R412
  7. Lutz, 2004, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 101, 16369
  8. Maguire, 2000, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97, 4398
  9. Munte, 2002, Nat Rev Neurosci, 6, 473
  10. Green, 2003, Nature, 423, 534
  11. Wickens, 1983, Science, 221, 1080
  12. Fahle, 2005, Curr Opin Neurobiol, 15, 154
  13. Shapiro, 2006, Neuroreport, 17, 163
  14. Vogel, 2002, Psych Bull Rev, 9, 739
  15. Vogel, 1998, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 24, 1656
  16. Sergent, 2005, Nat Neurosci, 8, 1391
  17. Olivers, 2005, Psych Sci, 16, 265
  18. Chun, 1995, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 21, 109
  19. Duncan, 1994, Nature, 369, 313
  20. Shapiro, 1994, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 20, 357
  21. Martens, 2007, Acta Psychol (Amst), 123, 204
  22. Bledowski, 2004, J Neurosci, 24, 9353
  23. Hommel, 2005, Psych Res, 70, 425
  24. Sergent, 2004, Psych Sci, 15, 720
  25. Delorme, 2004, J Neurosci Methods, 134, 9
  26. Jung, 2000, Psychophysiology, 37, 163

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 766

Metadata

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