Distinguishing the Attentional Mechanisms of Distinct Mindfulness States: A Computational Modeling Comparison of Focused Attention and Open Monitoring.

Focused attention (FA) meditation narrows the width of attentional focus and slows the rate at which attention can be narrowed further, while open monitoring (OM) meditation speeds up the rate of attention narrowing and increases nondecision time, suggesting distinct cognitive mechanisms. In a within-subject experiment with 29 meditation-naïve participants, FA reduced the maximum attentional spotlight width compared to OM and an active control condition, and slowed the rate of narrowing. OM accelerated attention narrowing and increased time for perceptual-motor and motor processes. These computational model-based results indicate FA may limit initial distraction but hinder rapid attentional recalibration, whereas OM improves target selection speed at the cost of slower encoding and execution.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Focused attention (FA) and open monitoring (OM) meditation are theorized to confer distinct neurobehavioral influences, yet the specific cognitive mechanisms underlying these effects remain poorly understood. This study leveraged computational modeling to formally test and distinguish how these two mindfulness states modulate theoretical processes of attention control. We analyzed flanker task data from a prior study in which 29 meditation-naïve participants completed a fully within-subject crossover protocol, involving brief state inductions of FA, OM, and active control. We then fit a shrinking spotlight (SSP) computational model to quantify parameters of attentional scope, decision thresholds, and nondecision-related processing. As hypothesized, FA decreased the maximum "width" of the attentional spotlight compared to OM and control conditions (all t >|8.43|, all p < 0.001), while slowing the rate of narrowing (all t >|7.29|, all p < 0.001). In contrast, OM accelerated the rate of attention narrowing (t(82) = 2.18, p = 0.032) and increased nondecision time (all t > 2.01, all p < 0.048). These results indicate that FA narrows attentional scope, possibly reducing initial distraction but with limitations to rapidly recalibrate attention beyond the initial scope of focus. In contrast, OM appears to improve the speed of selecting relevant targets, while slowing perceptual-motor encoding and motor execution. Together, these findings provide model-based evidence for the distinct attentional mechanisms of FA and OM and illustrate the utility of computational cognitive modeling for testing key theories within mindfulness science. This study was not preregistered.