Cited by 51Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Respond, don’t react: The influence of mindfulness training on performance monitoring in older adults

Open access
Smart, Colette M., Segalowitz, Sidney J.·2017·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

A sizeable body of literature demonstrates positive effects of mindfulness training on brain, behavior, and psychological processes in both novice and expert practitioners as compared to non-meditators. However, only more recently has research begun to examine the specific mechanisms by which mindfulness exerts these effects. In the current study, we used event-related potentials (error-related negativity (ERN), error positivity (Pe)) to test the hypothesis that performance monitoring is one such mechanism. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in healthy older adults (n = 36), relevant because markers of performance monitoring are known to decline with normal aging. Compared to an active control condition, mindfulness participants showed an increase in the ERN, without an increase in the Pe. Participants in both groups reported a reduction in self-report of anxiety and self-judgment of one's own mental functioning, indicating the subjective impression of benefit from each intervention type. The current results are important insofar as they support the purported self-regulatory functions of mindfulness (i.e., learning to respond, not react), as well as demonstrating that such positive effects can be obtained in an older adult sample, both of which have important implications for intervention.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-017-0539-3

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Smart et al. found that immediately post-intervention in both groups a trend in decrease in cognitive complaints, increase in memory self-efficacy, reduction in self-reported anxiety, and self-judgment of one's own mental functioning was detected.

    “The results were similar to a smaller study by Smart et al. [55, 56], where immediately post-intervention in both groups a trend in decrease in cognitive complaints, increase in memory self-efficacy, reduction in self-reported anxiety, and self-judgment of one’s own mental functioning was detected.”

    From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Self-report measures and Impact of mindfulness training on performance monitoring sections report reduced anxiety in both groups after intervention and an indirect change in non-judgment related to anxiety. They do not report a post-intervention decrease in cognitive complaints or an increase in memory self-efficacy. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two research groups investigated the effects of psychoeducation with MBSR-based therapy on individuals with SCD (n = 147, n = 38).

    “Two research groups investigated the effects of psychoeducation with MBSR-based therapy on individuals with SCD (n = 147 [68, 69], n = 38 [55, 56]).”

    From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Procedures section describes an MBSR-based mindfulness intervention compared with psychoeducation, and Table 1 reports 38 participants. But only 15 of the 38 had subjective cognitive decline; the other 23 were healthy controls. The two therapies were separate study arms, not a combined treatment. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A total of four research groups described psychoeducational interventions for individuals with SCD alone or in combination with cognitive training and CBT-based interventions and MBSR-based interventions.

    “A total of four research groups described psychoeducational interventions alone [61] or in combination with cognitive training and CBT-based interventions [66] and MBSR-based interventions [55, 56, 68, 69]”

    From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Procedures section describes an MBSR-based mindfulness program studied in older adults, including participants with subjective cognitive decline. It also describes psychoeducation as a separate control condition, not as an intervention combined with the mindfulness program; participants were not exclusively people with subjective cognitive decline. Our copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All 6 papers focusing on interventions for individuals with SCD were carried out within randomized controlled trials.

    “All were carried out within randomized controlled trials [55, 56, 61, 66, 68, 69].”
  • With regard to psychotherapeutic interventions, no data in individuals with SCD were identified, while data regarding psychoeducational approaches addressing individuals with SCD are available from four research groups.

    “With regard to psychotherapeutic interventions, no data in individuals with SCD were identified, while data regarding psychoeducational approaches addressing individuals with SCD are available from four research groups [55, 56, 61, 66, 68, 69].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Desjardins, J. A., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2013). The timing and consistency of event-related potential responses when processing faces: Deconstructing the P100-N170 complex using ICA and robust esti- mation. Journal of Vision, 13, 1-18.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smart, C. M., & Segalowitz, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Brock University (CA)
Corresponding author
Smart, Colette M.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2017-10-02
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
1151-1163
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2763452903
Cited by
51
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Alzheimer Society (Young Investigator Award #1216)
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 training, performance monitoring, error-related negativity, error positivity, older adults, aging, self-regulation, anxiety, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Brain, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Neuronal Plasticity, Perception, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Executive Function, Self Report, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Cognitive Dysfunction, 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