MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413516764 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v17n3p15

Mindfulness and Cognitive Flexibility: A Review of Behavioral and Neural Evidence

2025· article· en· W4413516764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychologyFlexibility (engineering)Cognitive flexibilityCognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive sciencePsychotherapistNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive flexibility—the capacity to shift perspectives, adapt to changing environments, and disengage from habitual patterns—is a foundational aspect of executive functioning and a key determinant of cognitive performance. This review synthesizes behavioral, clinical, and neurobiological evidence indicating that mindfulness training enhances cognitive flexibility through improvements in attentional control, emotional regulation, and meta-awareness. Drawing from randomized controlled trials, correlational studies, and neuroimaging research, we examine how mindfulness-based interventions impact task-switching, inhibitory control, and set-shifting in both healthy and clinical populations. Neurobiological findings highlight the roles of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and salience networks as key mediators of enhanced executive control. Structural brain changes—including increased gray matter density—are also observed following sustained practice, suggesting durable neuroplastic adaptations. Clinical implications are discussed for conditions characterized by cognitive rigidity, such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and OCD. Beyond clinical populations, mindfulness is positioned as a low-cost, scalable intervention to enhance cognitive performance, resilience, and adaptability in everyday settings. We conclude by identifying methodological challenges and outlining future directions, including mechanistic studies, personalized interventions, and the integration of behavioral and neural metrics to optimize cognitive enhancement outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207