4.6 Article

Mental training affects distribution of limited brain resources

Journal

PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 1228-1235

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050138

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [U01AT002114-01A1, U01 AT002114] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [K23 DA022471] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [P50 MH069315, P50-MH069315-03] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The information processing capacity of the human mind is limited, as is evidenced by the so-called attentional-link'' deficit: When two targets (T1 and T2) embedded in a rapid stream of events are presented in close temporal proximity, the second target is often not seen. This deficit is believed to result from competition between the two targets for limited attentional resources. Here we show, using performance in an attentional-blink task and scalp-recorded brain potentials, that meditation, or mental training, affects the distribution of limited brain resources. Three months of intensive mental training resulted in a smaller attentional blink and reduced brain-resource allocation to the first target, as reflected by a smaller T1-elicited P3b, a brain-potential index of resource allocation. Furthermore, those individuals that showed the largest decrease in brain-resource allocation to T1 generally showed the greatest reduction in attentional-blink size. These observations provide novel support for the view that the ability to accurately identify T2 depends upon the efficient deployment of resources to T1. The results also demonstrate that mental training can result in increased control over the distribution of limited brain resources. Our study supports the idea that plasticity in brain and mental function exists throughout life and illustrates the usefulness of systematic mental training in the study of the human mind.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available