Mindfulness and mechanisms of attention in a neutral and palatable food context.

Zsófia Logemann-Molnár, Anna Veres-Székely, Zsolt Demetrovics, H N Alexander Logemann
Author Information
  1. Zsófia Logemann-Molnár: Doctoral School of Psychology, ELTE, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
  2. Anna Veres-Székely: Institute of Psychology, ELTE, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
  3. Zsolt Demetrovics: Institute of Psychology, ELTE, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
  4. H N Alexander Logemann: Institute of Psychology, ELTE, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.

Abstract

Introduction: Mindfulness has been associated with benefits on cognitive processes, including attention. However, the exact relationship between mindfulness, components of attention, and the role of reward context has not yet been fully elucidated, which is relevant, especially in the context of addiction. In the current study, we specifically evaluated the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and the balance between voluntary (top-down), and stimulus-driven (bottom-up) attention. In addition, we explored whether the relationship was mediated by asymmetry of frontal brain activity, an index of approach tendencies, and varies as a function of reward context.
Methods: In total, 95 participants (30 male, 65 female) with a mean age of 25.87 (SD = 7.38) participated. Resting-state electrophysiological activity was recorded using EEG, and participants were assessed on dispositional mindfulness, and performed the visuospatial cueing (VSC) task, which indexed voluntary- and stimulus-driven attention in a neutral and palatable food (reward) context. In the endogenous VSC task, a central cue signals the likely location of a subsequent target. The validity effect represents the benefit of valid cueing relative to the costs of invalid cueing in terms of response time.
Results and discussion: Dispositional mindfulness was associated with a reduced validity effect, plausibly reflecting a combination of reduced voluntary attention and increased stimulus-driven attention, irrespective of condition. The relationship between dispositional mindfulness and visuospatial attention could not be explained by asymmetry of frontal brain activity.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0273913 [PMID: 36048784]
  2. Brain Connect. 2018 Feb;8(1):40-48 [PMID: 29130326]
  3. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48 [PMID: 12703651]
  4. Appetite. 2020 Aug 1;151:104710 [PMID: 32298701]
  5. J Sch Psychol. 2017 Aug;63:77-103 [PMID: 28633940]
  6. PLoS One. 2019 Jul 19;14(7):e0219862 [PMID: 31323050]
  7. Neuron. 2008 May 8;58(3):306-24 [PMID: 18466742]
  8. J Exp Psychol. 1980 Jun;109(2):160-74 [PMID: 7381367]
  9. Int J Neurosci. 2021 May;131(5):453-461 [PMID: 32223344]
  10. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  11. Int J Nurs Sci. 2019 Dec 27;7(1):35-40 [PMID: 32099857]
  12. Biol Psychol. 2013 Apr;93(1):105-13 [PMID: 23410762]
  13. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60 [PMID: 19897823]
  14. Cognit Ther Res. 2012 Oct 1;36(5):441-450 [PMID: 23280000]
  15. Int J Psychophysiol. 2017 Jan;111:98-114 [PMID: 27865882]
  16. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014 May;22(5):E6-8 [PMID: 24910860]
  17. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Mar;3(3):201-15 [PMID: 11994752]
  18. Int J Psychophysiol. 2017 Sep;119:19-30 [PMID: 28288803]
  19. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Nov 16;18(12):741-752 [PMID: 29142296]
  20. Conscious Cogn. 2016 Feb;40:116-30 [PMID: 26784917]
  21. J Vis. 2014 Jan 01;14(5):6 [PMID: 24819737]
  22. J Anxiety Disord. 2011 Jan;25(1):123-30 [PMID: 20832990]
  23. Behav Res Methods. 2010 Nov;42(4):1096-104 [PMID: 21139177]
  24. Int J Psychophysiol. 2013 Mar;87(3):273-8 [PMID: 22906814]
  25. BMC Psychol. 2022 Jan 4;10(1):4 [PMID: 34983661]
  26. Biol Psychol. 2011 Dec;88(2-3):243-52 [PMID: 21884751]
  27. Neurosci Lett. 2019 Apr 17;698:186-191 [PMID: 30659914]
  28. Dev Sci. 2018 Sep;21(5):e12646 [PMID: 29356254]
  29. Brain Imaging Behav. 2018 Oct;12(5):1379-1392 [PMID: 29243121]
  30. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2016;27:105-36 [PMID: 26407959]
  31. Int J Psychophysiol. 2013 Nov;90(2):207-14 [PMID: 23892096]
  32. Neuropsychobiology. 2013;68(1):34-43 [PMID: 23774986]
  33. J Behav Addict. 2020 Oct 03;9(3):818-825 [PMID: 33006956]
  34. Behav Res Methods. 2012 Jun;44(2):314-24 [PMID: 22083660]
  35. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Dec;131:313-330 [PMID: 34560133]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0attentionmindfulnesscontextrelationshiprewarddispositionalstimulus-drivenactivitycueingpalatablefoodMindfulnessassociatedvoluntaryasymmetryfrontalbrainparticipantsEEGvisuospatialVSCtaskneutralvalidityeffectreducedIntroduction:benefitscognitiveprocessesincludingHoweverexactcomponentsroleyetfullyelucidatedrelevantespeciallyaddictioncurrentstudyspecificallyevaluatedbalancetop-downbottom-upadditionexploredwhethermediatedindexapproachtendenciesvariesfunctionMethods:total9530male65femalemeanage2587SD=738participatedResting-stateelectrophysiologicalrecordedusingassessedperformedindexedvoluntary-endogenouscentralcuesignalslikelylocationsubsequenttargetrepresentsbenefitvalidrelativecostsinvalidtermsresponsetimeResultsdiscussion:Dispositionalplausiblyreflectingcombinationincreasedirrespectiveconditionexplainedmechanismsattentionalbias

Similar Articles

Cited By