The impact of a brief mindfulness training on interoception: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interoception is a collection of different representations of signals originating within the body. The way of perceiving these signals seems to be related to both emotion regulation and dysregulation, and its dysfunction is implicated across a variety of affective disorders. There is a growing body of research investigating the relationship between mindfulness meditation practices and interoception showing an increase in interoceptive processes with regular training. In this study, we assessed the effects of a three-day mindfulness training on interoceptive accuracy and sensibility in a young healthy adult sample. Moreover, we also performed a mediation analysis on interoceptive sensibility and anxiety. Healthy participants (n = 40) naive to mindfulness practices were randomized to a brief mindfulness training (MT) (n = 20, females = 10) or to an active control group (n = 20, females = 10). Participants were assessed before and after the 3-days intervention for both groups on measures of interoception and anxiety in a modified intention-to-treat approach. The brief mindfulness training group increased interoceptive sensibility while active control had no effects on this variable. Five out of eight subdomains of interoceptive sensibility were significantly improved after mindfulness training. There was no significant difference in interoceptive accuracy after training. The effect of a brief mindfulness training on interoceptive sensibility mediated changes in the anxiety state. To date, this is the first study showing a plausible mechanism of a brief mindfulness training to explain the anxiolytic effects of meditation practices. Trial registration: RBR-7b8yh8, March 28th 2017 http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-7b8yh8/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".