↓ Skip to main content

Meditation Experience Predicts Introspective Accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Meditation Experience Predicts Introspective Accuracy
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kieran C. R. Fox, Pierre Zakarauskas, Matt Dixon, Melissa Ellamil, Evan Thompson, Kalina Christoff

Abstract

The accuracy of subjective reports, especially those involving introspection of one's own internal processes, remains unclear, and research has demonstrated large individual differences in introspective accuracy. It has been hypothesized that introspective accuracy may be heightened in persons who engage in meditation practices, due to the highly introspective nature of such practices. We undertook a preliminary exploration of this hypothesis, examining introspective accuracy in a cross-section of meditation practitioners (1-15,000 hrs experience). Introspective accuracy was assessed by comparing subjective reports of tactile sensitivity for each of 20 body regions during a 'body-scanning' meditation with averaged, objective measures of tactile sensitivity (mean size of body representation area in primary somatosensory cortex; two-point discrimination threshold) as reported in prior research. Expert meditators showed significantly better introspective accuracy than novices; overall meditation experience also significantly predicted individual introspective accuracy. These results suggest that long-term meditators provide more accurate introspective reports than novices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Brazil 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 271 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 22%
Researcher 45 16%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 42 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 113 40%
Neuroscience 29 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Philosophy 8 3%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 57 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,052,460
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,695
of 214,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,889
of 178,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#203
of 4,428 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 178,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,428 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.