Four weeks of meditation training improves sustained attention in community-dwelling older adults: a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: With our rapidly expanding population of older adults, identifying effective intervention strategies to improve cognitive functioning is an increasing priority. This study sought to examine whether 4 weeks of thrice-weekly meditation training can improve attention in older adults, as well as whether such benefits may extend to other domains of cognition as well as mobility. Methods: Forty-three participants (mean age 68 years) were randomized into either the focused attention meditation group or the music listening control group ( Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT03417635). Participants completed three 20-minute guided group sessions per week for four consecutive weeks. Our primary outcome measure was behavioural performance on the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Secondary and tertiary outcome measures included event-related potentials (ERPs) during the SART task, measures of executive functioning, and measures of mobility. Results: We found that meditation training significantly improved attention, as demonstrated by improved SART accuracy and changes in N2 ERP amplitude and latency. Discussion: These findings suggest that meditation may lead to changes in attention and underlying cognitive processing in older adults, although a full-scale definitive trial is needed. Future research on the long-term benefits with real world applications is warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it