ArticleCureus2022
A Retrospective Analysis of Three Focused Attention Meditation Techniques: Mantra, Breath, and External-Point Meditation.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurophysiological mechanisms of focused attention meditation: A scoping systematic review.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Eliciting brain waves of people with cognitive impairment during meditation exercises using portable electroencephalography in a smart-home environment: a pilot study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three different meditation techniques (two internal focus techniques and one external focus technique) using a low-cost portable electroencephalography (EEG) device, namely, MUSE, for an objective comparison. Methods This is an IRB-approved retrospective study. All participants in the study were healthy adults. Each study participant (n = 34) was instructed to participate in three meditation sessions: mantra (internal), breath (internal), and external point. The MUSE brain-sensing headband (EEG) was used to document the "total time spent in the calm state" and the "total time spent in the calm or neutral state" (outcomes) in each three-minute session to conduct separate analyses for the meditation type. Separate generalized linear models (GLM) with unstructured covariance structures were used to examine the association between each outcome and the explanatory variable (meditation type). For all models, if there was a significant association between the outcome and the explanatory variable, pairwise comparisons were carried out using the Tukey-Kramer correction. Results The median time (in seconds) spent in the calm state while practicing mantra meditation was 131.5 (IQR: 94-168), while practicing breath meditation was 150 (IQR: 113-164), and while practicing external-point meditation was 100 (IQR: 62-126). Upon analysis, there was a significant association between the meditation type and the time spent in the calm state (p-value = 0.0006). Conclusion This is the first study comparing "internal" versus "external" meditation techniques using an objective measure. Our study shows the breath and mantra technique as superior to the external-point technique as regards time spent in the calm state. Additional research is needed using a combination of "EEG" and patient-reported surveys to compare various meditative practices. The findings from this study can help incorporate specific meditation practices in future mindfulness-based studies that are focused on healthcare settings and on impacting clinical outcomes, such as survival or disease outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.