Cited by 380Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Cognitive-Affective Neural Plasticity following Active-Controlled Mindfulness Intervention

Open access
Allen, Micah, Dietz, Martin, Blair, Karina S., van Beek, Martijn, Rees, Geraint, Vestergaard-Poulsen, Peter, Lutz, Antoine, Roepstorff, Andreas·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Mindfulness meditation is a set of attention-based, regulatory, and self-inquiry training regimes. Although the impact of mindfulness training (MT) on self-regulation is well established, the neural mechanisms supporting such plasticity are poorly understood. MT is thought to act through interoceptive salience and attentional control mechanisms, but until now conflicting evidence from behavioral and neural measures renders difficult distinguishing their respective roles. To resolve this question we conducted a fully randomized 6 week longitudinal trial of MT, explicitly controlling for cognitive and treatment effects with an active-control group. We measured behavioral metacognition and whole-brain blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signals using functional MRI during an affective Stroop task before and after intervention in healthy human subjects. Although both groups improved significantly on a response-inhibition task, only the MT group showed reduced affective Stroop conflict. Moreover, the MT group displayed greater dorsolateral prefrontal cortex responses during executive processing, consistent with increased recruitment of top-down mechanisms to resolve conflict. In contrast, we did not observe overall group-by-time interactions on negative affect-related reaction times or BOLD responses. However, only participants with the greatest amount of MT practice showed improvements in response inhibition and increased recruitment of dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, and right anterior insula during negative valence processing. Our findings highlight the importance of active control in MT research, indicate unique neural mechanisms for progressive stages of mindfulness training, and suggest that optimal application of MT may differ depending on context, contrary to a one-size-fits-all approach.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.2957-12.2012

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Similar findings of increased activation in neural areas related to tonic alertness have been observed in additional studies on Vipassana, Mindfulness, and Zen meditation.

    “As reviewed by Britton et al. [25], similar findings of increased activation in neural areas related to tonic alertness have been observed in additional studies on Vipassana (e.g., [107, 108]), Mindfulness (e.g., [109]), and Zen meditation (e.g., [110, 111]).”

    From The Influence of Buddhist Meditation Traditions on the Autonomic System and Attention (2015) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports increased DLPFC activity after mindfulness training and links it to top-down attention during task performance. It does not identify this activity as tonic alertness; the finding is specifically about executive processing during an affective Stroop task. This verdict concerns the mindfulness example attributed to this paper, not the separately cited Vipassana and Zen studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Buddhist meditation practices are associated with increased DLPFC activity during meditation and during tasks, and with larger frontal gray matter volumes.

    “Buddhist meditation practices have been found to be associated with increased activity in the DLPFC, both during meditation45,65,76–79 and during tasks,67,70,80,81 as well as larger frontal gray matter volumes.66,82,83”
  • Buddhist meditation practices are associated with increases in dACC activation during meditation and during tasks.

    “Buddhist meditation practices have been found to be associated with increases in activation in the dACC both during meditation45,65,76,78,86 and during tasks.70,80,81,87–89”
  • Mindfulness meditation is an intervention that has been shown to regulate dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity.

    “There are other interventions that have been shown to regulate DLPFC activity, such as mindfulness meditation1.”
  • Healthy volunteers who followed meditation training for 6-8 weeks performed better on Stroop, Hayling, and response inhibition tasks than non-meditators.

    “Compared to non-meditators, healthy volunteers who had followed a meditation training course for 6–8 weeks performed better on a Stroop task (Allen et al 2012, Moore & Malinowski 2009, Teper & Inzlicht 2013), the Hayling task (Heeren et al 2009), and response inhibition tasks (Sahdra et al 2011).”

    From Prefrontal cortex executive processes affected by stress in health and disease (2018) · cites this paper as Allen et al 2012

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
Allen, M., Dietz, M., Blair, K. S., van Beek, M., Rees, G., Vestergaard-Poulsen, P., Lutz, A., & Roepstorff, A.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-10-31
Volume
32
Issue
44
Pages
15601-15610
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2087111889
Cited by
380
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 1
FWCI
26.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593, 082334)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (P01AT004952)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, neuroplasticity, active control, response inhibition, attentional control, metacognition, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior insula, self-regulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Attention, Awareness, Cognition, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuronal Plasticity, Oxygen, Patient Compliance, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Relaxation Therapy, Meditation, Young Adult, Stroop Test

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