Both basic science and clinical research on mindfulness, meditation, and related constructs has dramatically increased in recent years. However, interpretation of these research results has been challenging. The present article addresses unique conceptual and methodological problems posed by research in this area. Included among the key topics is the role of first person experience and how it can be best studied; the challenges posed by intervention research designs in which true double-blinding is not possible; the nature of control and comparison conditions for research that includes mindfulness or other meditation-based interventions; issues in the adequate description of mindfulness and related trainings and interventions; the question of how mindfulness can be measured; questions regarding what can and cannot be inferred from self-report measures; and considerations regarding the structure of study design and data analyses. Most of these topics are germane to both basic and clinical research studies and have important bearing on the future scientific understanding of mindfulness and meditation.
In a 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 100 to 150 mg/d indomethacin appeared to protect mild to moderately impaired Alzheimer's disease patients from the degree of cognitive decline exhibited by a well-matched, placebo-treated group. Over a battery of cognitive tests, indomethacin patients improved 1.3% (+/- 1.8%), whereas placebo patients declined 8.4% (+/- 2.3%)--a significant difference (p < 0.003). Caveats include adverse reactions to indomethacin and the limited scale of the trial.
Although clinical observations suggest that alexithymic individuals have a deficit in their ability to recognize emotional stimuli and that this deficit is not simply due to a problem in verbal labeling, these two hypotheses have not been empirically confirmed. Three hundred eighty participants in a community survey without current or past histories of psychiatric disorder completed two independent measures of alexithymia [the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)] and the Perception of Affect Task (PAT), a 140-item measure of the ability to match emotion stimuli. The PAT includes four subtasks that require the subject to match verbal or nonverbal emotion stimuli with verbal or nonverbal emotion responses. The subtasks include matching sentences and words (verbal-verbal), faces and words (nonverbal-verbal), sentences and faces (verbal-nonverbal), and faces and photographs of scenes (nonverbal-nonverbal). Across the entire sample, higher (alexithymic) TAS-20 and lower LEAS scores were both correlated with lower accuracy rates on each of the subtasks of the PAT (p < .001), accounting for 10.5% and 18.4% of the variance, respectively. Fifty-one subjects met TAS-20 criteria for alexithymia. Alexithymic individuals scored lower than other subjects on purely nonverbal matching, purely verbal matching, and mixed verbal-nonverbal matching (all p < .001). These results suggest that alexithymia is associated with impaired verbal and nonverbal recognition of emotion stimuli and that the hallmark of alexithymia, a difficulty in putting emotion into words, may be a marker of a more general impairment in the capacity for emotion information processing.
Previous research has shown that elderly adults have difficulty recalling the source of recently acquired facts but does not indicate whether source memory is more impaired than fact memory. This study examined old and young subjects' memory for novel facts that had been read to them by 1 of 2 experimental sources either in a random order or in a blocked order. When fact memory was equated in young and old at different levels of performance, the elderly exhibited disproportionate source memory deficits in the blocked condition but not in the random condition. Results suggest that the relation between fact and source memory in the elderly varies across experimental conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.