Model Adj R 2 =0.122, F(3,59)=3.87, p=0.01 Group b SE t p Intercept 8.7 2.9 2.94 0.004 Group (ROT) -2.7 4.2 0.65 0.52 Anxiety (State) 0.03 0.27 0.10 0.92 Group X Anxiety 0.76 0.38 2.0 0.05 Results Discussion • Attention-control component of mindfulness meditation may help increase stress-resilience and reduce MW • Overall, differences in outcome measures between relaxation-focused and attention-control focused guided meditation training were modest • No group differences in objective performance markers (d’ in SART, accuracy of text comprehension or working memory: operation span or n-Back) • Did not find significant relations between MW during tasks and objective performance markers. • Relative cognitive benefits of meditation training may depend on comparison group Study 2 • Slightly increased differences between training conditions, included meditation immediately before post-test • Used sentence-by-sentence self-paced reading 1 and faster, single-letter version of SART • Found robust effects of MW on text comprehension and d’ for SART • Few improvements from pre- to post-test in text comprehension accuracy, increased d’ in SART and decreased MW for both training groups • Found minimal differences between groups at post-test Attention monitoring during mindfulness training reduces mind-wandering and increases stress resilience LANGUAGE RESEARCH IN SERVICE TO THE NATION | WWW.CASL.UMD.EDU Introduction Mind-wandering (MW) is detrimental to performance in many cognitive domains, including reading comprehension 1,2 and sustained attention. 3,4 The present study tested the hypothesis that attention-monitoring during a mindfulness meditation intervention would reduce MW and improve performance on both fundamental (sustained attention) and higher-level (text comprehension) cognitive tasks. Figure 2. Means (SE) percent off-task reported in response to Attention Probes during a) the Semantic SART and b) Text Comprehension. Group X Session interaction is significant for SART but not Text Comprehension. Table 1. Bivariate correlations between anxiety and MW (across groups). STICSA variables reported are the overall scores; trait was measured at pre-test. Positive correlations are consistent with anxiety and stress as significant drivers of MW. Alexa R. Romberg 1,2 , Henk J. Haarmann 1 , Stefanie E. Kuchinsky 1 , Valerie P. Karuzis 1 , Nicholas B. Pandža 1 . Nicholas S. Davey 3 , Patrick, J. Cushen 4 3 Washington State University; 4 Murray State University University of Maryland 1 Center for Advanced Study of Language, 2 Human Development & Quantitative Methodology References 1 Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind-wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 586– 592. 2 Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind-wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781. 3 Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12(3), 442–448. 4 McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind-wandering in an executive-control task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 196–204. Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported, in whole or in part, with funding from the United States Government. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Maryland, College Park and/or any agency or entity of the United States Government. Outcome Measures • Passages and questions drawn from GRE practice tests published by the Educational Testing Service. • 4 Forms: 2 given pre-test, 2 post-test, counterbalanced • 25 minutes to complete (some time pressure) • Presented paper & pencil • Attention probes via computer every 1.5 min (cued with ringtone, see Figure 1). • Participants also tallied self-caught MW instances during reading. Figure 1. Semantic SART procedure. Participants pressed “1” for animals and “2” for non-animals. Word stimulus duration was 1.8 s with ISI jitter (M = 1.8 s). Animal targets occurred with low probability (7.1%) to promote mind wandering. Attention/awareness was probed pseudo-randomly to assess state changes in mindfulness. Text Comprehension Semantic SART Participants N=64 graduate and undergraduate students (paid $15/hr for participation); No extensive prior meditation experience State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) at pre- and post-test Meditation Training ROT = Relaxation-Only Training; MMT = Mindfulness Meditation Training; meditations designed to be as parallel as possible 8 visits, 6 with two 20-minute guided meditations, 2 with one 40-minute guided meditation Delivered over closed headphones at computer; written instructions prior to each session; proctors blind to participants’ condition MT ROT It is well known that when individuals try to… focus on any task, including a relaxation task, that their minds are more or less prone to mind-wandering. As a result, the mind strays off the primary task and gets involved in other concerns. relax, including by sensing their body, that they may initially feel more or less relaxed. For example, they may become aware of tension in the muscles of their forehead. To train your… attention, ability to relax, …the spoken instructions will give you many opportunities to become aware of… your own mind-wandering and bring back your attention to the primary body-relaxing task. the nature of your thoughts, feelings, and sensations when attending to your body. It is very important to utilize these opportunities as much as possible to benefit from the training, including when audio instructions go silent for some time to give you an undisturbed opportunity to practice. Pre-Test Post-Test MW Measure Trait State Trait State Reading Comp Self-Caught 0.17 0.24 a 0.19 0.26 b Reading Comp Attention Probes 0.32 b 0.38 c 0.2 0.21 SART Attention Probes 0.18 0.30 b 0.15 0.23 a a p<0.1, b p<0.05, c p<0.01 Figure 3. Predicted values from the multiple regression model (Table 2) illustrating the different effects of Anxiety on MW for the two meditation training groups. Table 2. Multiple regression model predicting the Self-Caught MW measure at Post-test. In this model, Group is dummy coded with MT=0 and ROT=1 and Anxiety is centered at 0. Figure 1. Effects of meditation training intervention. Participants in both groups reported equivalent within-session increases in relaxation (panel a) and across-session decreases in MW during meditation (panel b). The similarity of general effects of meditation training across groups suggests that the differences found are due to the specific content of the meditation instructions.