Distinguishing the attentional mechanisms of distinct mindfulness states: A computational modeling comparison of focused attention and open monitoring
October 2, 2025 preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/2zp6v_v1 (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractFocused attention (FA) meditation narrows attentional scope, reducing initial distraction but limiting rapid recalibration beyond the initial focus. Open monitoring (OM) meditation improves the speed of selecting relevant targets while slowing perceptual-motor encoding and motor execution. These distinct attentional mechanisms were identified by fitting a computational model to flanker task data from 29 meditation-naïve participants who completed brief FA, OM, and control inductions in a within-subject crossover protocol. The findings provide model-based evidence differentiating how FA and OM affect attention control processes.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Within-subject crossover protocol Preregistered |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 29 |
| Population | Meditation-naïve participants |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Distraction Attentional control Cognition Task project management |
| Key finding | Focused attention narrows attentional scope while open monitoring improves target selection speed but slows perceptual-motor encoding and motor execution. |
Abstract
Objectives: 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. Method: 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. Results: < 0.048). Conclusions: 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. Preregistration: This study was not preregistered.