Mindfulness meditation styles differently modulate source-level MEG microstate dynamics and complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The investigation of mindfulness meditation practice, classically divided into focused attention meditation (FAM), and open monitoring meditation (OMM) styles, has seen a long tradition of theoretical, affective, neurophysiological and clinical studies. In particular, the high temporal resolution of magnetoencephalography (MEG) or electroencephalography (EEG) has been exploited to fill the gap between the personal experience of meditation practice and its neural correlates. Mounting evidence, in fact, shows that human brain activity is highly dynamic, transiting between different brain states (microstates). In this study, we aimed at exploring MEG microstates at source-level during FAM, OMM and in the resting state, as well as the complexity and criticality of dynamic transitions between microstates. Methods: Ten right-handed Theravada Buddhist monks with a meditative expertise of minimum 2,265 h participated in the experiment. MEG data were acquired during a randomized block design task (6 min FAM, 6 min OMM, with each meditative block preceded and followed by 3 min resting state). Source reconstruction was performed using eLORETA on individual cortical space, and then parcellated according to the Human Connect Project atlas. Microstate analysis was then applied to parcel level signals in order to derive microstate topographies and indices. In addition, from microstate sequences, the Hurst exponent and the Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZC) were computed. Results: Our results show that the coverage and occurrence of specific microstates are modulated either by being in a meditative state or by performing a specific meditation style. Hurst exponent values in both meditation conditions are reduced with respect to the value observed during rest, LZC shows significant differences between OMM, FAM, and REST, with a progressive increase from REST to FAM to OMM. Discussion: Importantly, we report changes in brain criticality indices during meditation and between meditation styles, in line with a state-like effect of meditation on cognitive performance. In line with previous reports, we suggest that the change in cognitive state experienced in meditation is paralleled by a shift with respect to critical points in brain dynamics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".