Short Term Training Loving Kindness Meditation

5/12/2018 Short Term Training Loving Kindness Meditation - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/short-term-training-loving-kindness-meditation

ORIGINAL PAPER

Short-Term Training in Loving-Kindness Meditation

Produces a State, But Not a Trait, Alteration of Attention

Christopher J. May & Michelle Burgard & Melissa Mena & Imran Abbasi &

Noah Bernhardt & Samantha Clemens & Eve Curtis & Eben Daggett & Jaimie Hauch &

Kayla Housh & Alison Janz & Amber Lindstrum & Kimberly Luttropp &

Rebecca Williamson

Published online: 13 April 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract While mindfulness meditation has been asso-

ciated with enhanced attentional abilities, the consequen-

ces of loving-kindness meditation for attention have not

previously been investigated. We examined the trait and

state effects of 8 weeks of training in loving-kindness

meditation (LKM) on the attentional blink. The atten-

tional blink is a period of time in which a target stimulus

is less likely to be detected if it follows too quickly

(approximately 500 ms) after a previously detected

target. For the two experiments reported here, a group

of participants trained in LKM by meditating for

approximately 15 min per day, four days per week, for

8 weeks. Experiment 1 utilized a pre-post design, with a

non-meditating control group, to examine whether this

training reduced the attentional blink. No differences

were found. However, in an exploratory analysis,

meditators did exhibit increases in two facets of

mindfulness measured by the Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire: observation and descriptiveness. In exper-

iment 2, we tested for a state effect of LKM by having

trained meditators practice LKM immediately prior to the

attentional blink task. Here, meditators had a significant-

ly reduced blink size compared to control participants.

To establish that this reduction was caused by the

combination of LKM training with pre-task meditation,

we analyzed the data in experiment 2 with respect to one

of our previous works, which reported that the practice

of LKM immediately prior to the attentional blink task in

those without meditation training did not reduce the

blink magnitude. This analysis also revealed a significant

difference. Therefore, training in LKM, coupled with its

practice immediately prior to an attention task, caused a

state reduction in the attentional blink. These results are

the first to demonstrate that LKM, an emotion-focused

practice, influences cognitive processing.

Keywords Meditation . Loving-kindness . Metta .

Attentional blink . Mindfulness

Introduction

Research into the psychological and physiological effects of

mindfulness meditation has burgeoned in recent years;

however, other types of meditation, such as loving-kindness

meditation, have received relatively little attention. Mindful-

ness meditation is primarily a cognitive practice (Wallace and

Shapiro 2006), in which the practitioner cultivates “ bare

attention”—the ability to notice thoughts, emotions, and

sensations without any accompanying mental discursiveness.

Loving-kindness meditation (LKM), on the other hand, is an

emotion-focused meditation designed to cultivate affective

balance, which is considered an important skill born of

contemplative practice (Ekman et al. 2005; Wallace and

Shapiro 2006). Research on emotion-focused meditations,

which includes compassion meditation—a practice similar to

LKM, has naturally focused on their consequences for

emotion and psychological health. For example, LKM (also

referred to as Metta meditation) has been shown to increase

self-compassion (Shapiro et al. 2005; Shapiro et al. 2007),

positive emotion, mindfulness, life purpose, and social

support (Fredrickson et al. 2008), as well as social

connectedness (Hutcherson et al. 2008). Furthermore, LKM

C. J. May (*) : M. Burgard : M. Mena : I. Abbasi :

N. Bernhardt : S. Clemens : E. Curtis : E. Daggett : J. Hauch :

K. Housh : A. Janz : A. Lindstrum : K. Luttropp : R. Williamson

Department of Life Sciences, Carroll University,

100 N. East Ave,

Waukesha, WI 53186, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153

DOI 10.1007/s12671-011-0053-6



reduces pain, distress, and anger (Carson et al. 2006),

symptoms of illness (Fredrickson et al. 2008), and alleviates

negative symptoms of schizophrenia (Johnson et al. 2009).

Compassion meditation both reduces psychological distress

and improves immune function (Pace et al. 2009). Only two

studies to date, however, have examined the influence of an

emotion-focused meditation on a classically cognitive

process. Carter et al. (2001) found that, in contrast to anattention-focused meditation (one-pointed meditation), com-

passion meditation did not influence the rate of percept

switching in a binocular rivalry paradigm undertaken by

Tibetan monks. Burgard and May (2010) found that LKM,

practiced by participants with no meditation training, did not

reduce the attentional blink, which is a measure of the

temporal dynamics of attention.

Nonetheless, because emotions influence cognition (Isen

1987), emotion-focused meditations like LKM should have

cognitive consequences. Attention, in particular, is modu-

lated by affect (Basso et al. 1996 cited in Fredrickson 1998;

Compton et al. 2004; Derryberry and Tucker 1994;

Fredrickson and Branigan 2005; Gasper and Clore 2002;

Rowe et al. 2007; Srinivasan et al. 2009). As discussed

more fully below, because LKM increases positive affect

and mood (Fredrickson et al. 2008; Hutcherson et al. 2008),

it should therefore have consequences for attention. Indeed,

these consequences may be similar to those of mindfulness

meditation for one measure of attention, the attentional

blink (Slagter et al. 2007; van Leeuwen et al. 2009).

The attentional blink is a reduced ability to detect a

target stimulus if it appears too quickly (~100 – 500 ms)

after a previously detected target stimulus (Raymond et al.

1992). The attentional blink is observed in rapid serial

visual presentation paradigms, wherein participants are

asked to identify two targets embedded within a stream of

distractor stimuli. The temporal distance between the two

targets is a function of how many intervening distractor

stimuli there are (this is referred to as a trial ’s “lag”; see

Fig. 1). Olivers and Nieuwenhuis (2006) advanced two

hypotheses to explain the decreased probability of detecting

a second target when it occurs at short lags: the overin-

vestment hypothesis and the positive affect hypothesis.

According to the former, attending to a rapidly presented

stream of stimuli gives all stimuli, targets and distractors

alike, increased access to a higher, competitive, and limited

capacity processing stage. Distracter stimuli that gain

access prevent access by target stimuli, thereby interferingwith the consolidation necessary for target detection. The

overinvestment hypothesis implies that reducing attentional

investment in the incoming stream of stimuli should

decrease distractor interference and increase the proportion

of correctly identified second targets. This prediction has

been confirmed in experiments that employ mental distrac-

tion (Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2005), increased cognitive

load (Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2006), and instructions to

concentrate less (Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2006). The

positive affect hypothesis is a particular instantiation of

the overinvestment hypothesis. Accordingly, positive affect

distributes attention (e.g., see Dreisbach and Goschke 2004;

Srinivasan et al. 2009), resulting in lower attentional

investment in the ongoing stream of stimuli in an

attentional blink task. Like manipulations to decrease

attentional investment, positive affect inductions reduce

the attentional blink (Jefferies et al. 2008; Olivers and

Nieuwenhuis 2006). In addition, higher levels of disposi-

tional positive affect predict a reduced attentional blink

(MacLean et al. 2010).

Similarly, LKM should attenuate the attentional blink

since LKM increases positive affect and mood (Fredrickson

et al. 2008; Hutcherson et al. 2008). LKM involves

progressively directing feelings of loving-kindness to the

mental images of selected people. To start this meditation,

the practitioner calls to mind the image of a loved one, and

then direct intentions toward that person. For example, the

meditator may silently repeat phrases such as “May you be

well,” “May you be happy,” and “May you be free from

suffering.” While repeating these phrases, the meditator

focuses on the intentionality and emotion behind them,

attempting to generate the genuine desire that their loved

one be well, happy, and free from suffering. In extended

versions of this practice, the meditator progressively

changes the object of focus from a loved one, to oneself,

to a neutral figure, to a person that typically evokes

negative emotions (for more, see Salzberg 1995).

In previous work looking at the influence of LKM on the

attentional blink, we failed to find an effect (Burgard and

May 2010). There, participants without prior LKM training

followed a guided meditation file for 10 min before

beginning the attentional blink task. This 10 min of LKM

likely induced some positive affect, as Barnhofer et al.

(2010) found that 15 min of guided LKM produced a shift

in EEG laterality toward a pattern associated with positive

Fig. 1 Attentional blink stimuli. Each letter or digit appeared for

50 ms, with a 50-ms inter-stimulus interval. The first target (T1)

always appeared in the 9th position. The second target (T2) appeared

on 50% of trials, in either the 12th position (lag 3) or the 17th position

(lag 8)

144 Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153



affect (see Tomarken et al. 1992). However, this change in

affect may have been either too weak to influence

attentional processing or not adequately sustained through-

out the task. Recent research indicates that the effects of

compassion meditation (which is similar to LKM, but rather

than directing loving-kindness to specific people, is non-

referential) are training-time dependent. For example, Lutz

et al. (2004) found that compassion mediation wasassociated with significant increases in gamma EEG band

power, which is associated with attention (for a review, see

Ward 2003), in novices following just 1 week of training

(1 h/day). A substantially larger increase in gamma power

was observed in monks. Furthermore, participants with

1 week of training in compassion meditation showed a

significant increase of activity during meditation in the

anterior cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex of the brain

(Lutz et al. 2008a). This increase was also substantially

larger in monks. Because the effects of compassion

meditation are training-time dependent, we assume that

the effects of LKM may be as well. Therefore, while a

single session of LKM failed to reduce the attentional blink

(Burgard and May 2010), training in LKM may. We further

hypothesized that a training-related reduction in the

attentional blink would be mediated by increased positive

affect, per Oliver and Nieuwenhuis’ (2006) positive affect

hypothesis.

In addition to theoretical reasons for hypothesizing that

LKM improves attention, there is practical motivation for

this work as well. Anecdotally, some beginning meditators

find LKM to be easier than mindfulness meditation, since

LKM involves less antagonism with normal discursive

thinking. While “not thinking” is not the goal of mindful-

ness meditation, this is a common misconception. Mind-

fulness meditation emphasizes the cultivation of bare

attention, where the practitioner notices thoughts but does

not engage them. Success with bare attention requires

practice and perseverance through the frustration of being

swept away by thoughts. In contrast, LKM prompts the

practitioner to become engrossed in particular thoughts. If

LKM training reduces the attentional blink, LKM may

make attentional changes more accessible.

In experiment 1, we investigated whether training in

LKM produced trait changes in attention, reflected in a

reduced attentional blink. We further examined if changes

were mediated by changes in affect. Finally, we conducted

an exploratory analysis of the effects of LKM on

mindfulness. Fredrickson et al. (2008) found that LKM

increased positive emotions, which in turn increased

mindfulness, as measured by the Mindfulness and Aware-

ness Scale (Brown and Ryan 2003). However, the relation-

ship between LKM and facets of mindfulness (described

below) has not previously been studied. In experiment 2,

we examined whether LKM, practiced immediately prior to

the attentional blink task by those with LKM training,

produced state changes in attention.

General Method

Participants

All participants were college students at a small, midwest-

ern university. Participants in the meditation group ( N =13,

M age =22.08, 76.9% female) were students in a psychology

course, led by the first author (CJM), in which this research

was conducted. They were research assistants for this

project. Enrollment in this course determined the sample

sizes. This design was motivated by the intensive time

commitment required of meditators and served to incentiv-

ize adherence to the training regimen. No course outcome,

including grades, was linked to adherence to training;

however, meditators were aware that if they did adhere to

the training program, and a significant effect were found,

they may be co-authors on a manuscript. This design

reasonably raises concerns that our results may be attribut-

able to motivational and knowledge differences between

groups. However, several recent studies have found that

reductions in the attentional blink are caused by decreased

engagement in the task (Arend et al. 2006; Olivers and

Nieuwenhuis 2005; Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2006;

Taatgen et al. 2009). Thus, if the meditation group were

more engaged in the attentional blink task, this additional

engagement would cause a change in blink magnitude in

the opposite direction from our hypothesis that meditation

reduces the blink size. In the “Results and Discussion”

Section, we use data on T1 detection to argue against

differential motivation. There is also no evidence that the

size of the attentional blink can be moderated by

knowledge of the task. Indeed, those with extensive

familiarity with the attentional blink still produce the

standard attentional blink curve (Braun 1998).

Participants in the control group ( N =14, M age =23.21,

78.6% female) were volunteers solicited from ongoing

psychology courses. Control participants were informed

that they would be participating in a study on meditation

being conducted as part of the first author ’s course.

Participants volunteered on the condition that they were

able to come in for testing at two time periods.

To determine if there were differences between the

meditation and control groups, both were administered

three paper and pencil surveys: the Big Five Inventory

(BFI; Benet-Martinez and John 1998; John et al. 1991;

John et al. 2008), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

(FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006), and the Positive Affect Negative

Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988). All three

tests are well validated. For the BFI, FFMQ, and PANAS,

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153 145



respectively, see John et al. (2008), Baer et al. (2008), and

Watson et al. (1988). Surveys were administered in

counterbalanced order.

The BFI assessed individuals on five personality

dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness,

openness to experience, and agreeableness. To examine

differences between the meditation and control groups, we

used a non-parametric test, the Kolmogorov –

Smirnov (K –

S) test, because Levene’s test for equality of variances was

significant for both extraversion, F (1, 25)= 4.25, p =.05,

and neuroticism, F (1, 25)= 8.52, p=.01. The K – S test

revealed that the meditation group was significantly less

neurotic, Z =1.27, p=.04 than the control group. While

neuroticism is associated with an increased attentional blink

(MacLean and Arnell 2010), we did not find a significant

effect in experiment 1 (this confound is addressed more in

the “General Discussion” Section). In experiment 2, two

outliers on the attentional blink were removed from the data

analysis. As a result, there was no difference on neuroticism

between groups (all other questionnaire analyses yielded

the same results reported here).

The FFMQ measures five dimensions of mindfulness:

observing (“I pay attention to sensations such as the wind in

my hair or the sun in my face”), describing (“I’m good at

finding words to describe my feelings”), acting with

awareness (“When I do things, my mind wanders off and

I’m easily distracted”), non-judging (“I criticize myself for

having irrational or inappropriate emotions”), and non-

reactivity (“In difficult situations, I can pause without

immediately reacting”; Baer et al. 2006). Since scores on

the observe facet deviated from a normal distribution

(Shapiro –

Wilk=.968, p=.05), we again used the K –

S test

to examine group differences. No significant differences

were found on any of the five facets.

The PANAS asked participants to rate the amount of

positive affect (e.g., excited, enthusiastic, and active) and

negative affect (e.g., distressed, nervous, and ashamed) they

felt in the past week. Positive affect was calculated by

summing participant responses to the ten positive affect

terms. Negative affect was similarly calculated. ANOVAs

revealed no significant differences between groups on

either positive or negative affect.

Meditation Training

Participants in the meditation condition were introduced to

LKM through a 15-min guided meditation led by the first

author (CJM). CJM has been a meditator for 8 years and

has received instruction in multiple types of meditation,

including LKM, from multiple teachers at multiple medi-

tation centers and meditation retreats. In this introduction,

meditators were instructed to first imagine their breath

entering their heart as they inhaled and exiting their heart as

they exhaled (this portion of the LKM was adapted from

Tiller et al. 1996). After a few minutes, meditators were

asked to bring to mind the image of a loved one, someone

who naturally evokes feelings of love. In keeping with

traditional instruction, meditators were asked not to select

the image of a significant other. They were also told that if

they had difficulty selecting a person, they could use a pet.

After calling to mind the image of someone who naturallyevoked loving feelings, meditators were instructed to direct

three intentions to that mental image: “May you be well.

May you be happy. May you be free from suffering. ” The

importance of the intentions behind the words, rather than

the words themselves, was stressed. Meditators were told

that it is normal for their minds to wander at some point

during this practice, and that when they have noticed their

mind wander, they should bring their attention back to

directing intentions. After approximately 5 min, meditators

were instructed to shift their mental image to an image of

themselves. Then, they directed the same three intentions to

themselves by changing the pronoun: “May I be well. May

I b e h ap py. M ay I b e fre e fro m s uffe ring .” After

approximately another 5 min, meditators were asked to

resume imagining that their breath was emanating from

their heart area. Meditators were also provided with an mp3

audio guided meditation file (http://marc.ucla.edu/mpeg/

05 _ Loving _ Kindness _ Meditation.wma ). Subsequently,

meditators could either meditate without guidance, or

follow the mp3 file. Meditators were instructed to practice

LKM for at least 15 min per day, four days a week, for

8 weeks. Meditators kept a time log to track their total

meditation time. On average, participants meditated

485.15 min (SD=71.31).

Materials

An attentional blink task was created with SuperLab 4.0.

Trials consisted of the rapid serial visual presentation of

either 14 or 19 stimuli (presented in black font on a grey

background; Fig. 1). Within this stream of stimuli, one or

two targets could appear. The first target (T1) was a

random number between 2 and 9, always appearing in

the 9th position. The second target (T2), an “X,”

appeared on 50% of trials. T2 was presented either in

the 12th position (lag 3) or in the 17th position (lag 8).

All remaining stimuli were randomly selected letters

(without replacement) in the set A though Z (excluding

B, I, O, Q, S, and X). SuperLab 4.0 synchronizes the

onset and offset of stimuli with the respective onset and

offset of the monitor ’s refresh cycle. Stimuli were

presented on a monitor with a refresh rate of 60 Hz or

16.666 ms (Dell Dimension 9200 Desktop PC running

Windows XP). Letters/digits were presented for 3 cycles,

146 Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153

http://marc.ucla.edu/mpeg/05_Loving_Kindness_Meditation.wma












or 49.998 ms, with an inter-stimulus interval of 50 ms.

On lag 3 trials, T2 appeared 300 ms after the onset of

T1, well within the range in which the attentional blink

occurs, whereas on lag 8 trials, T2 appeared 800 ms after

the onset of T1, well outside of the attentional blink

window (Shapiro et al. 1997). After each trial, partic-

ipants were asked to identify which number appeared (T1;

participants were instructed to guess if they did not know)and whether an X (T2) appeared. After answering the

second question, there was an inter-trial interval varying

between 200 and 300 ms. Participants completed four

blocks of 52 trials, each containing 13 lag 3 trials, 13 lag

8 trials, and 26 trials without a T2.

Participants’ electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded

while they completed the attentional blink. Recordings

were tak en fro m three lea ds , p la ce d in a L ea d II

configuration, connected to an MP35 psychophysiology

recording platform (Biopac Systems, Inc.). All ECG data

were filtered offline with a 0.5 – 35-Hz band-pass finite

impulse response filter. Heart rate variability (HRV) was

derived from participants’ ECG, as practices similar to

LKM have been shown to increase HRV (McCraty et al.

1995; McCraty et al. 1998). We used two measures of HRV,

sympathovagal balance and cardiac coherence. Both meas-

ures of HRV were computed using Biopac’s AcqKnowlege

4.0 software, which generates the power spectral density

from a Fast Fourier Transform of the heart rate (R-R

interval). Sympathovagal balance was defined as the ratio

between high frequency (0.15 – 0.5 Hz) and low frequency

(0.04 – 0.15 Hz) power. Cardiac coherence was defined as

the low-frequency power divided by the sum of the very

low-frequency (0.01 –

0.04 Hz) and high-frequency power

(Tiller et al. 1996).

Experiment 1

Method

Participants were tested at two time points (henceforth, pre-

test and post-test), spaced approximately 8 weeks apart.

Between the pre- and post-tests, participants in the

mediation condition practiced LKM. At pre-test, all

participants first filled out the BFI, FFMQ, and PANAS.

Participants only completed the FFMQ and PANAS at post-

test to examine changes in mindfulness and affect,

respectively. ECG leads were attached after participants

completed the questionnaires. Before beginning the atten-

tional blink task, participants were given the option to

practice with trials that did not appear in the experiment

(only a minority of participants practiced at post-test). Once

participants felt comfortable, they then began the attentional

blink task.

Results and Discussion

Pre-test Attentional Blink Analyses

We began the analysis of the attentional blink by looking for

differences in T1 detection. A difference between groups in

T1 detection might indicate differential engagement in the

task. A non-significant difference would provide evidenceagainst the influence of any demand characteristics possibly

arising because the meditation group doubled as the experi-

menters. Both groups’ data deviated from a normal distribu-

tion (Shapiro – Wilk control group=.665, p <.001; Shapiro –

Wilk meditation group=.897, p=.013), making a non-parametric

procedure the most appropriate test. A K – S test found no

significant differences between groups at pre-test.

The attentional blink is defined as the difference in

detection accuracy of T2, given the correct detection of T1

(T2|T1), between long and short lags of T2. The meditation

group’s data deviated from a normal distribution on the short

interval trials (Shapiro –

Wilk=.863, p=.04), and the control

group’s data deviated from a normal distribution on the long

trial intervals (Shapiro – Wilk=.974, p=.01). Therefore, we

employed a non-parametric test for repeated measures, the

Wilcoxon signed-rank, with lag interval as the repeated

measure. There were significant differences between lag

intervals for both the control group ( Z =−3.3, p<.001) and

the meditation group ( Z =−3.04, p<.001). At lag 8, the

control group detected an average of 76% (SD =16.6%) of

T2|T1, whereas in the lag 3 trials, they only detected an

average of 48.9% (SD=18.6%) of T2|T1. Meditators, at lag

8, detected an average of 82.9% (SD=8.3%) of T2|T1, and

in lag 3 trials, an average of 55.4% (SD=20.9%) of T2|T1.

This difference between lag intervals for both groups is the

attentional blink. To examine differences between groups,

we computed an attentional blink metric by subtracting T2|

T1 accuracy on lag 3 trials from T2|T1 accuracy at lag 8. A t

test showed no difference between groups; both exhibited

similar attentional blinks at pre-test.

Post-test Attentional Blink Analyses

As with the pre-test, a K – S test of T1 again revealed no

significant differences.

At post-test, T2|T1 data from both the meditation and

control groups data deviated from a normal distribution at

lag 8 (Shapiro – Wilk meditation group=.828, p=.02; Shapiro –

Wilk control group−.703, p<.001). A Wilcoxon signed-ranks

test revealed significant differences between lag interval for

both controls ( Z =−3.11, p<.001) and meditators ( Z =−2.83,

p=.001). As at pre-test, both groups exhibited an attentional

blink. Meditators detected 62.1% (SD=26.5%) of T2|T1 at

short lag interval trials, and 87.43% (SD=7.8%) at long lag

interval trials. Control participants averaged a T2|T1

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153 147



detection accuracy of 56.9% (SD=16.6%) and 79.8% (SD=

15.2%) on short and long lag interval trials, respectively. A

t test of the derived attentional blink metric (long minus

short interval accuracies) of the two groups showed no

significant difference. Just as at pre-test, both groups

exhibited similar attentional blinks.

Pre-post Analyses

Finally, we examined changes across pre- and post-tests

with a 2 (condition)×2 (time) mixed factorial ANOVA of

these attentional blink scores. There were no significant

main effects or interactions.

Because the observe facet of the FFMQ was not

normally distributed at pre-test, we examined FFMQ

changes between pre- and post-tests using the Wilcoxon

signed-rank test. No significant changes on any of the

five facets were found for the control group. Meditators,

however, exhibited significant changes on the observe

( Z =−

2.32, p =.02) and describe ( Z =−

2.5, p =.01) sub-

scales. Specifically, meditators were both more observant

and more descriptive at post-test compared to pre-test

(Fig. 2). Meditation time did not significantly correlate with

either dimension. Note that while the significant differences

on the observe and describe sub-scales may have resulted

from response bias—since the meditators were also the

experimenters—we do not believe this is the case. The lack

of change on the acting with awareness, non-judging, and

non-reactivity sub-scales is contraindicative, as response bias

should universally inflate all sub-scale scores. We also do not

believe these results stemmed from co-intervention bias. All

course readings related to mindfulness and meditation were

done before the pre-test administration of the FFMQ. We

would expect co-intervention bias, if present, to be reflected in

different pre-test FFMQ scores from the control group, which

was not the case.

For the PANAS, a 2 (condition)×2 (time) mixed factorial

ANOVA of positive affect revealed a significant main effect

for Condition, F (1, 25)=4.36, p=.043. There was neither a

significant effect for Time, nor a Condition×Time interac-

tion. Meditators had higher positive affect ( M =37.81, SD =

8.29) than the control group ( M =33, SD =7.99). A post hoc

paired-samples t test of meditators’ positive affect con-

firmed that there was no change from pre- to post-tests, t (12)=−1.08, p=.3 (uncorrected for multiple comparisons).

Thus, any changes in the attentional blink could not be

mediated by changes in positive affect, contrary to our

hypothesis.

A 2 (condition)×2 (time) mixed factorial ANOVA of

negative affect showed no significant main effects and no

interaction for positive affect. There was, however, a

significant interaction for negative affect, F (1,25)=4.56,

p =.04. Meditators’ negative affect decreased between the

two time periods, from 20.15 (SD=5.18) at pre-test to

17.23 (SD=3.88) at post-test, as the control group’s

negative affect increased from 19.21 (SD=4.58) to 21.07

(SD=4.63). We further analyzed this interaction with a

post hoc paired-samples t test of the meditators’ negative

affect. There was not a significant difference, t (12)=1.68,

p =.12 (one-tailed, Bonferroni corrected for two compar-

isons). Therefore, as with positive affect, meditators

evinced no significant change in negative affect.

In recording the ECG, improper connections and

excessive movement artifact necessitated the elimination

of several participants’ heart rate data. After this pruning,

ECG data remained for ten in the meditation group and

eight in the control group at pre-test. At post-test, ECG data

remained for 12 in the meditation group and 11 in the

control group. Data from nine in the meditation group and

all eight in the control group were available for a repeated

measures ANOVA. No significant differences were found

in either sympathovagal balance or cardiac coherence

between groups at pre-test. Contrary to our expectations,

there were also no significant differences at post-test, nor

did a repeated measures ANOVA reveal a change between

testing periods. This is consistent with the lack of affect

change indicated by the PANAS.

Discussion

Eight weeks of LKM training did not alter the attentional

blink or affect. There was no difference between groups on

the attentional blink, nor was there a difference between

pre- and post-tests in positive affect to mediate any blink

difference that may have been found. As such, experiment

1 failed to support our hypotheses.

However, LKM training did significantly alter facets of

mindfulness. Meditators scored significantly higher on the

observe and describe sub-scales of the FFMQ. The

Fig. 2 Means (with standard error bars) of meditators’ and control

participants’ difference scores (post-test minus pre-test) on sub-scales

of the five factor mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ)

148 Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153



increased propensity for meditators to be aware of their

surroundings (observe) is consistent with effects achieved

with mindfulness meditation (e.g., Moore and Malinowski

2009). We speculate that this increase may be caused by the

first portion of meditators’ LKM, where they focused on

their breath emanating from their heart. This practice tends

to increase awareness of both the breath and the heart beat.

In contrast, the remainder of the LKM is more activelydirected, so we would not expect that portion to increase

the propensity for observation. Increases on the describe

sub-scale are directly related to the primary activity in

LKM, using words to evoke and sustain emotions.

While LKM training did not produce trait changes in

affect or attention, state changes may be induced immedi-

ately following LKM practice since meditation does

produce state brain changes (Lutz et al. 2004; Lutz et al.

2008a). We investigated this possibility in experiment 2.

Experiment 2

Method

Data collection for experiment 2 began approximately

1 week after the final data collection day in experiment 1.

Control participants from experiment 1 were asked to come

back for a third round of testing. They were informed that a

follow-up study to experiment 1 was being conducted. All

participants in the meditation and control groups were the

same as in experiment 1—there was no attrition. As such,

all participants had equal numbers of exposure to the

attentional blink task. Participants experienced a 1- to 2-

week interval between their completion of the post-test

attentional blink task in experiment 1 and the attentional

blink task in experiment 2.

Immediately prior to beginning the attentional blink,

meditators were instructed to meditate (either self-guided

or with the mp3 audio file) for 10 min. All experimenters

left the testing room for this period so that meditators

could focus on their practice. The control group did not

meditate.

ECG was recorded during LKM for the meditation

group. After LKM, meditators completed the attentional

blink task, with ECG being continuously recorded. Only

seven participants in the meditation group had sufficiently

artifact-free ECG data during both their meditation session

and the attentional blink task. Therefore, we did not analyze

potential differences between these two recording condi-

tions. Because control participants did not meditate, they

began the attentional blink task immediately after the ECG

leads were attached. Sympathovagal balance and cardiac

coherence were used to measure changes in affect, as in

experiment 1.

Two outliers among the meditation group on the

attentional blink metric were identified using PASW’s

(SPSS) box plot rule. These outliers (see Fig. 3) were

discarded from all analyses in experiment 2.

A significant difference in the attentional blink would

indicate that LKM produced a state change in attention. We

further sought to establish that this state change required the

previous 8 weeks of LKM training. Previously, weestablished that LKM, practiced immediately before the

attentional blink task in mediation-naïve participants, does

not reduce the blink (Burgard and May 2010). Here, we

analyzed the present data with respect to that in Burgard

and May (2010). If the meditators in experiment 2 showed

a reduced attentional blink compared to the meditators in

Burgard and May (2010), then a state reduction in blink

magnitude can be attributed to a more effective LKM,

resulting from participants’ 8 weeks of meditation training.

We report this analysis at the conclusion of the “Results and

Discussion” Section.

Results and Discussion

We again began analysis of the attentional blink by first probing

for differences in T1 detection. Both groups’ data deviated from

a normal distribution (Shapiro – Wilk control group=.643, p<.001;

Shapiro – Wilk meditation group=.836, p=.001), prompting the use

of a non-parametric test. The K – S test found no significant

differences between groups in T1 detection.

In examining T2|T1 differences, the control group

deviated from a normal distribution on long-interval

trials (Shapiro – Wilk=.66, p <.001). Therefore, a Wil-

coxon signed-rank test of the differences between short

and long lag interval trials was employed, demonstrating

Fig. 3 Histogram of the number of meditators and control participants

in different bins of attentional blink scores (representing the difference

in accuracy of T2|T1 detection between lag 8 and lag 3 trials). All bins

have a range of 10, with the bin number marking each category

corresponding to the lowest value for that bin. The two outliers in the

meditation group can be seen in the rightmost bins

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153 149



significant differences for both the control group ( Z =−3.1,

p =.002) and the meditation group ( Z =−2.8, p =.005). As

in experiment 1, both groups exhibited an attentional

blink.

On the attentional blink metric (long lag interval trials

minus short lag interval trials), the meditation group deviated

from a normal distribution (Shapiro – Wilk=.8, p=.01). A

consequent K –

S test of attentional blink scores revealed a significant difference between groups, Z =1.27, p=.04 (one-

tailed, Bonferroni adjusted for two comparisons). Consistent

with our hypothesis, therefore, meditators had a significantly

smaller attentional blink ( M =10.5%, SD=9.7%) than control

participants ( M =22%, SD=16%).

To examine the influence of training on this atten-

tional blink state effect, we compared the current results

with those reported in Burgard and May (2010). A direct

comparison between the meditation group’s data with the

meditation group’s data in Burgard and May (2010),

however, would confound reductions in the attentional

blink with a practice effect. Participants in experiment 2

completed the attentional blink task three times (the first

two occurring in experiment 1) compared to just once for

the participants in Burgard and May (2010). To correct for

this, we estimated the size of a practice effect by

subtracting the attentional blink scores for the control

group in experiment 2 from their scores at pre-test in

experiment 1. This practice effect estimate (5%) was then

subtracted from each of the attentional blink scores of the

meditation group in Burgard and May (2010; equivalently,

this estimate could be added to the meditation group’s data

in experiment 2). A K – S test between these practice

effect-corrected attentional blink scores, and the attention-

al blink scores of the trained meditators revealed a

significant effect, Z =1.52, p =.01 (one-tailed, Bonferroni

corrected for two comparisons; Fig. 4). Meditators in

Burgard and May (2010) had an average attentional blink

magnitude of 27% (SD=14.7%), while the participants in

experiment 2 had a blink magnitude of 10% (SD=10%).

Thus, 8 weeks of LKM training decreased the attentional

blink, when the task was undertaken shortly after a period

of meditation. The same experiment with participants who

did not train in LKM did not have this effect (Burgard and

May 2010).

Due to excessive artifact, ECG data from several

participants were again excluded from analysis (remaining

n=9 meditators while meditating, n =9 meditators during

the attentional blink, and n=10 control participants during

the attentional blink). There were no differences in

sympathovagal balance or cardiac coherence between

groups or between the two conditions of recording for

meditators. Contrary to our expectations, but consistent

with experiment 1, we have no evidence of a change in

affect as a result of LKM.

General Discussion

Eight weeks of training in loving-kindness meditation

produced a state, but not a trait, change in attention, as

measured by the attentional blink. Experiment 1 failed to

find a reduced attentional blink in those that had trained in

LKM for 8 weeks. However, when those same practitioners

meditated immediately before the attentional blink task in

experiment 2, which was conducted shortly after experi-

ment 1, they did have a significantly reduced attentional

blink. In meditation-naïve participants, we previously found

that LKM did not produce a state reduction in the

attentional blink (Burgard and May 2010). The attentional

blink of meditators in experiment 2 was significantly

smaller than the attentional blink of meditators in Burgard

and May (2010). Thus, the state effect we observed in

experiment 2 can be attributed to the effects of 8 weeks of

LKM training. This is consistent with documented physi-

ological state effects, including increased gamma power

(Lutz et al. 2004) and increased activity in the anterior

cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex (Lutz et al. 2008a) during

meditation with just 1 week of training. Experiment 2 is the

third study to date, following Slagter et al. (2007) and van

Leeuwen et al. (2009), to demonstrate that meditation can

reduce the attentional blink. This is the first study to show

that LKM influences attention. Interestingly, the blink

reduction reported here occurred after far less meditation

training than that undertaken by participants in Slagter et al.

(2007). Their participants completed a 3-month mindful-

ness meditation retreat, which involved 10 – 12 h of

Fig. 4 Mean attentional blink scores (with standard error bars) under

four different conditions: no loving-kindness meditation (LKM) prior

to completing the AB (no LKM , no training ; experiment 1 pre-test

data), LKM followed by completion of the AB, without having

previously practiced LKM ( LKM, no training ; practice effect adjusted

data from Burgard and May 2010), completion of the AB without a

preceding LKM, following 8 weeks of LKM practice (no LKM,

training ; experiment 1 post-test data), and LKM just prior to

completion of the AB, following 8 weeks of LKM practice ( LKM,

training ; experiment 2 data)

150 Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153



meditation per day. At 10 h per day, retreatants meditated

for approximately 840 h each. Participants in experiment 2

achieved similar results in less than 1% of this time (8.09 h;

note that whether their results stemmed from a state or trait

effect was not evaluated and remains unclear).

Our results, however, are agnostic about the underlying

mechanism(s) that produced them. Olivers and Nieuwenhuis’

(2006) positive affect hypothesis predicts that an increasein positive affect would reduce the attentional blink. Since

LKM can increase positive affect, we hypothesized that

this increase would mediate a decreased attentional blink.

However, no significant increase in positive affect was

found in experiment 1, and experiment 2 found no

differences in the ECG, which can register increases in

positive affect (McCraty et al. 1995; McCraty et al. 1998).

Additional measures of positive affect in future studies are

necessary to better establish the presence/absence of

mediation. Alternatively, our results may be mediated

specifically by changes in attention, rather than affect.

While LKM is an emotion-focused meditation, attention

may still be trained. As the practitioner is directing

intentions such as “May you be well” and “May you be

happy,” their attention will inevitably wander, and they

must bring it back to directing intentions. LKM may share

mechanisms, then, with reductions in the attentional blink

found in Slagter et al. (2007) and van Leeuwen et al.

(2009). What these mechanisms are remain to be estab-

lished. Mindfulness is one possibility. However, while

experiment 1 demonstrated that 8 weeks of LKM training

enhanced practitioners’ propensity to be observant, as well

as increased their ability to label emotions, these changes

in mindfulness did not reduce the attentional blink.

Experiment 2 did not assess state changes in mindfulness.

Further examination of the relationships between attention

and mindfulness is required.

Comparative contemplative research would help delin-

eate the mechanisms underlying an improved attentional

blink and would also provide much needed data on the time

course of meditation-induced physiological and behavioral

changes. While mindfulness meditation and LKM have

been associated with a reduced attentional blink, focused

attention meditation (see Lutz et al. 2008 b) has not been.

This may reflect either a lack of research or null findings. In

focused attention meditation, the practitioner attempts to

keep their attention on an object of focus, such as the

breath. When the meditator notices that their attention has

wandered, they are to bring it back to the breath. This type

of meditation might cause an overinvestment of attention

(see Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2006) on attentional blink

stimuli, thereby increasing the attentional blink. Alterna-

tively, focused attention meditation may increase attentional

control, such that meditators can more effectively choose

not to invest as much attention to stimuli. Future work

comparing four cohorts—mindfulness meditators, focused

attention meditators, loving-kindness meditators, and ap-

propriate controls—would help determine whether atten-

tional control, attentional investment ability, affect, facets of

mindfulness, and/or other variables are responsible for

observed reductions in the attentional blink.

Comparative contemplative research such as this would

also help elucidate the time course of physiological and behavioral changes. Long-term meditation, such as that

undertaken by monks, is clearly associated with sizeable

physiological and behavioral changes (Brefczynski-Lewis

et al. 2007; Carter et al. 2001; Lutz et al. 2004; Lutz et al.

2008a). Shorter-term meditation, even as little as 4 – 5 days

(Tang et al. 2009; Zeiden et al. 2010), is as well. The

physiological changes demonstrated with 1 week of

meditation by Lutz et al. (2004) and Lutz et al. (2008a)

suggest that the results of experiment 2 may be replicated

with less training. In short, the rate at which effects accrue

is unclear. This is underscored by Carmody and Baer

(2008), who found that meditation time is weakly to

moderately correlated with several outcome variables.

These results suggest non-linear growth patterns, which

may be meditation-type dependent. For more arguments

regarding the importance of comparative contemplative

research, see Dorjee (2010).

Future work may also address limitations of the present

research. For example, participants were not randomly

assigned to the meditation or control groups. Because

participation in the meditation group required a significantly

higher time and effort investment than the control group, we

incentivized adherence to the LKM training program by

yoking it to a course. While there were no group differences in

experiment 2 in age, gender, personality dimensions, or initial

mindfulness and affect, a more rigorous experimental design

should be employed in future studies. In experiment 1, those

in the meditation group had lower neuroticism scores on the

Big Five Inventory, relative to the control group. Since

neuroticism is associated with a larger attentional blink

(MacLean and Arnell 2010), the null effect reported in

experiment 1 is confounded with this personality difference,

though we do not expect that a significant difference would

have otherwise arisen. Finally, there was a gender imbalance

in both groups, wherein approximately 3/4 of the participants

were female. Gender differences have not been reported with

respect to the attentional blink; however, the relationship

between gender and meditation is unknown. LKM may be

easier/harder, more/less efficacious for males.

Other individual differences besides gender may also

mediate or moderate the effects of meditation. For example,

Barnhofer et al. (2010) found that scores on the “Rumina-

tive Responses Scale” moderated meditation-induced shifts

in EEG laterality for different types of meditation.

Specifically, brooders had a higher shift with mindfulness

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153 151



meditation, while non-brooders responded more to LKM.

Since EEG laterality is associated with affect (Tomarken et

al. 1992), and affect is associated with the attentional blink

(Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2006), the attentional blink may

be mediated by an interaction between meditation type and

rumination. This hypothesis reinforces our earlier call for

comparative contemplative research.

The present results may have significant practicalimplications. Attentional changes were produced with

relatively little training—approximately 8 h. These changes

were produced by a technique that is anecdotally easier for

some and documented to be more efficacious for those that

do not have a tendency to brood (Barnhofer et al. 2010).

For those with attentional difficulties (e.g., attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder), LKM may be a more appropriate

initial intervention than mindfulness meditation. Mindful-

ness meditation, or other attention-intensive tasks, may then

build on the gains from practice of LKM. LKM may thus

facilitate and complement existing emphases in mindfulness-

based cognitive therapy, capitalizing on LKM’s ability to

reduce pain, distress, and anger (Carson et al. 2006) while

increasing self-compassion (Shapiro et al. 2005; Shapiro et

al. 2007), positive emotion, mindfulness, life purpose, social

support (Fredrickson et al. 2008), and social connectedness

(Hutcherson et al. 2008). To the extent that the state

attentional changes produced by LKM are applicable outside

of the attentional blink paradigm, this relatively short-term

training may be beneficial in non-clinical settings as well. As

William James (1918) said, “Each of us literally chooses, by

his way of attending to things, what sort of universe he shall

appear to himself to inhabit ” (p. 402).

References

Arend, I., Johnston, S., & Shapiro, K. (2006). Task-irrelevant visual

motion and flicker attenuate the attentional blink. Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review, 13, 600 – 607.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.

(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of

mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27 – 45.

Baer, R., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer,

S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness

questionnaire in meditating and non-meditating samples. Assess-ment, 15(2), 329 – 342.

Barnhofer, T., Chittka, T., Nightingale, H., Cisser, C., & Crane, C.

(2010). State effects of two forms of meditation on prefrontal

EEG asymmetry in previously depressed individuals. Mindful-

ness, 1, 21 – 27. doi:10.1007/s12671-010-0004-7.

Basso, M. R., Schefft, B. K., Ris, M. D., & Dember, W. N. (1996).

Mood and global-local visual processing. Journal of the

International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 249 – 255.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across

cultures and ethnic groups: multitrait multimethod analyses of the

big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 729 – 750.

Braun, J. (1998). Vision and attention: the role of training. Nature,

393, 424 – 425.

Brefczynski-Lewis, J. A., Lutz, A., Schaefer, H. S., Levinson, D. B.,

& Davidson, R. J. (2007). Neural correlates of attentional

expertise in long-term meditation practitioners. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 104(27), 11483 – 11488.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:

mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822 – 848.

Burgard, M., & May, C. J. (2010). The effect of positive affect induction via metta meditation on the attentional blink. Journal

for Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 7 (1), 8 – 15.

Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Relationships between mindful-

ness practice and levels of mindfulness, medical and psycholog-

ical symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-based stress

reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 23 – 33.

doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7.

Carson, J. W., Keefe, F. J., Lynch, T. R., Carson, K. M., Goli, V., Fras,

A. M., et al. (2006). Loving-kindness meditation for chronic low

back pain. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 23(3), 287 – 304.

doi:10.1177/0898010105277651.

Carter, O. L., Presti, D. E., Callistemon, C., Ungerer, Y., Liu, G. B., &

Pettigrew, J. D. (2001). Meditation alters perceptual rivalry in

Tibetan Buddhist monks. Current Biology, 15(11), R412.

Compton, R., Wirtz, D., Pajoumand, G., Claus, E., & Heller, W.

(2004). Association between positive affect and attentional

shifting. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28(6), 733 – 744.

Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of

attention. In P. M. Neidenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart ’ s

eye: emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167 –

196). San Diego: Academic.

Dorjee, D. (2010). Kinds and dimensions of mindfulness: why it

is important to distinguish them. Mindfulness, 1, 152 – 160.

doi:10.1007/s1267-010-0016-3.

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates

cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased

distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343 – 353.

Ekman, P., Davidson, R., Ricard, M., & Wallace, A. (2005). Buddhist

and psychological perspectives on emotions and well being.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 59 – 63.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review

of General Psychology, 2, 300 – 319.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden

the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition

and Emotion, 19(3), 313 – 332.

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S.

M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: positive emotions, induced

through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal

resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5),

1045 – 1062. doi:10.1037/a0013262.

Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: mood

and global versus local processing of visual information.

Psychological Science, 13, 34 –

40.Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-

kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion, 8

(5), 720 – 724. doi:10.1037/a0013237.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203 – 253.

James, W. (1918). The principles of psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Holt.

Jefferies, L. N., Smilek, D., Eich, E., & Enns, J. T. (2008). Emotional

valence and arousal interact in attentional control. Psychological

Science, 19(3), 290 – 295.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five

inventory – versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California,

Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

152 Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010-0004-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898010105277651

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1267-010-0016-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013262

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013262

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1267-010-0016-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898010105277651

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010-0004-7



John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to

the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and

conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 114 –

158). New York: Guilford Press.

Johnson, D. P., Penn, D. L., Fredrickson, B. L., Meyer, P. S., Kring, A.

M., & Brantley, M. (2009). Loving-kindness meditation to

enhance recovery from negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 499 – 509.

doi:10.1002/jclp.20591.Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M., & Davidson,

R. J. (2004). Long-term meditators self-induced high-amplitude

gamma synchrony during mental practice. PNAS, 101(46),

16369 – 16373.

Lutz, A., Brefczynski-Lewis, J., Johnstone, T., & Davidson, R. J.

(2008). Regulation of the neural circuitry of emotion by

compassion meditation: effects of meditative expertise. PLoS

ONE, 3(3), e1897. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001897.

Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2008).

Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163 – 169.

MacLean, M. H., & Arnell, K. M. (2010). Personality predicts

temporal attention costs in the attentional blink paradigm.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17 , 556 – 562.

MacLean, M., Arnell, K., & Busseri, M. (2010). Dispositional affect

predicts temporal attention costs in the attentional blink para-

digm. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1431 – 1438.

McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tiller, W. A., Rein, G., & Watkins, A. D.

(1995). The effects of emotions on short-term power spectrum

analysis of heart rate variability. The American Journal of

Cardiology, 76 (14), 1089 – 1093.

McCraty, R., Barrios-Choplin, B., Rozman, D., Atkinson, M., &

Watkins, A. D. (1998). The impact of a new emotional self-

management program on stress, emotions, heart rate variability,

DHEA, and cortisol. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral

Science, 33(2), 151 – 170.

Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness, and

cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 176 – 186.

Olivers, C. N. L., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2005). The beneficial effect of

concurrent task-irrelevant mental activity on temporal attention.

Psychological Science, 16 , 265 – 269.

Olivers, C. N. L., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of

additional task load and positive affect on the attentional blink.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and

Performance, 32, 364 – 379.

Pace, T. W. W., Negi, L. T., Adame, D. D., Cole, S. P., Sivilli, T. I.,

Brown, T. D., et al. (2009). Effect of compassion meditation on

neuroendocrine, innate immune and behavioral responses to

psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(1), 87 – 98.

doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.011.

Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary

suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional

blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception

and Performance, 18(3), 849 – 860.

Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect

increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 104(1), 383 – 388.

Salzberg, S. (1995). Loving-kindness: the revolutionary art of

happiness. Boston: Shambhala.

Shapiro, K. L., Arnell, K. M., & Raymond, J. E. (1997). The

attentional blink. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(8), 291 – 296.

Shapiro, S. L., Astin, J. A., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005).Mindfulness-based stress reduction for health care professionals:

results from a randomized trial. International Journal of Stress

Management, 12, 164 – 176.

Shapiro, S. L., Warren Brown, K., & Biegel, G. M. (2007). Teaching

self-care to caregivers: effects of mindfulness-based stress

reduction on the mental health of therapists in training. Training

and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(2), 105 – 115.

Slagter, H. A., Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Francis, A. D., Nieuwenhuis,

S., Davis, J. M., et al. (2007). Mental training affects distribution

of limited brain resources. PLoS Biology, 5(6), 0001 – 0008.

Srinivasan, N., Srivastava, P., Lohani, M., & Baijal, S. (2009).

Focused and distributed attention. Progress in Brain Research,

176 , 87 – 100. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17606-9.

Taatgen, N. A., Juvina, I., Schipper, M., Borst, J. P., & Sander, M.

(2009). Too much control can hurt: a threaded cognition model of

the attentional blink. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 1 – 29.

Tang, Y., Ma, Y., Fan, Y., Feng, H., Wang, J., Feng, S., et al. (2009).

Central and autonomic nervous system interaction is altered by

short-term meditation. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 106 (22), 8865 – 8870.

Tiller, W. A., McCraty, R., & Atkinson, M. (1996). Cardiac

coherence: a new, noninvasive measure of autonomic nervous

system order. Alternative Therapies, 2(1), 52 – 65.

Tomarken, A., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Doss, R. C. (1992).

Individual differences in anterior brain asymmetry and funda-

mental dimensions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 62(4), 676 – 687.

van Leeuwen, S., Muller, N. G., & Melloni, L. (2009). Age effects on

attentional blink performance in meditation. Consciousness and

Cognition, 18(3), 593 – 599.

Wallace, B. A., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). Mental balance and well-

being: building bridges between Buddhism and western psychol-

ogy. The American Psychologist, 61(7), 690 – 701.

Ward, L. M. (2003). Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive

processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (12), 553 – 559.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. U. (1988). Development and

validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the

PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54

(6), 1063 – 1070.

Zeiden, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P.

(2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: evidence of

brief mental training. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 597 – 605.

Mindfulness (2011) 2:143–153 153

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20591

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001897

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17606-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17606-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001897

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20591

Documents

Short Term Training Loving Kindness Meditation