ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Limited Validity of Breath-Counting as a Measure of Mindfulness in Ruminative Adolescents.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary examination of the validity of a behavioral mindfulness measure in adults with advanced cancer and their family caregivers.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Trial
- When attention falters: Brain, breathing, and behavioral signals of lapses in interoceptive attention.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- When attention falters: brain, breathing, and behavioral signals of lapses in interoceptive attention.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Neurofeedback Training Facilitates Awareness and Enhances Emotional Well-being Associated with Real-World Meditation Practice: A 7-T MRI Study.Mindfulness · 2025Article
- Measuring mindfulness in children: breath counting is unrelated to self-reported mindfulness but improves after mindfulness practice in 9-13 year-olds.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective measurement of mindfulness could help us understand the mechanisms of meditation interventions and how individuals vary in their disposition to be mindful. One proposed measure is the breath-counting task (BCT), which measures how accurately one can count cycles of their breath. Breath counting, which involves sustained attention, meta-awareness, and an internal locus of attention, has been shown in adults to be related to measures of mindfulness even when controlling for established attentional measures. In this study, we test the psychometrics of the BCT in a convenience sample of 78 adolescents with elevated rumination. In preregistered analyses, we related breath-counting measures, including novel objective respiration measures, to a suite of self-report measures as well as the sustained attention to response task (SART). While breath-counting performance showed fair split-half reliability and similar distributions to studies in adults, it did not show the expected positive associations with self-reported mindfulness measures (neither trait nor EMA). Surprisingly, breath-counting accuracy showed negative correlations with a subscale measuring observing of emotions and body sensations, negative correlations with nonreactivity, and performance decrements were larger for individuals scoring more highly on mindfulness in general. The SART showed a small negative correlation with breath-counting resets (an index of mind-wandering). Finally, breath-counting performance was not related to other theoretically relevant clinical, personality, and executive functioning criteria. Our results suggest that, at least in ruminative adolescents, breath-counting may measure a very narrow, contextual form of sustained attention, may not capture other qualities of mindfulness, and may lack predictive validity.
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.