Beyond Meditation: Understanding Everyday Mindfulness Practices and Technology Use Among Experienced Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness, a practice of bringing attention to the present non-judgmentally, has many mental and physical well-being benefits, especially when practiced consistently. Many technologies, such as mobile apps, live streams, virtual reality environments, and wearables, have been invented to support solo or group mindfulness practice. In this paper, we present findings from an interview study with 20 experienced mindfulness practitioners about their everyday mindfulness practices and technology use. Participants identify the benefits and challenges of developing long-term commitment to mindfulness practice. They employ various strategies, such as brief mindfulness exercises, social accountability, and guidance from teachers, to sustain their practice. While conflicted about technology, they adopt and appropriate a range of technologies in their practice for reminders, emotion tracking, connecting with others, and attending online sessions. They also carefully consider when to use technology, when and how to limit its use, and ways to incorporate technology as an object for mindfulness. Based on our findings, we discuss expanding the definition of mindfulness and the tension between supporting short- and long-term mindfulness practice. We also propose a set of design recommendations to support everyday mindfulness, including through the lens of metaphor, reappropriating non-mindfulness technology, and bringing community support into personal practice.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".