MINDFULNESS BRAIN DYNAMICS DURING AN AUDITORY ODDBALL PARADIGM: A NEUROPHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH
-
1
Laboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics (LNMB), Free University of Brussels, Belgium
-
2
Research Unit in Sciences of Osteopathy, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
-
3
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Ecuador
-
4
Faculty of Motor Skills Science, Free University of Brussels, Belgium
-
5
Laboratory of Electrophysiology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Mons, Belgium
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated links between phenomenology and brain dynamics during meditation practice comparatively to eyes-closed resting state. To do this, we investigated ERP response to a passive auditory paradigm, before, during and after mindfulness practice, enriched by self-report about inner experience of sound and mental state.
METHODS: 19 subjects are enrolled in the study, after their participation to an 8-week MBSR training program. We measured ERP, ERSP and ITC evoked by passive auditory 80/20 oddball stimuli during resting state and mindfulness, and we registered self-report quotes about experience. The recording was split in 3 steps: 8 minutes of resting state (R), 3x8 minutes of meditation (RM) and 8 minutes of resting state (RMR). For R and RMR, the participant was asked to “wait” eyes closed without providing any intentional effort of attention. For meditation practice (RM1-3), the trained participant was firstly asked to focus attention on their breath (8 min), then to shift their attention to the sound environment (8 min) and finally to let their attention flow through all phenomena presenting themselves to their consciousness (open awareness, 8 min). Phenomenological inquiry was standardized (quantifying subjective experience with a numerical scale between 0 and 4) and realized after each recording step. To avoid surprise effect and limited habituation, auditory stimuli was presented to the subject during 1 to 2 minutes before experiment.
RESULTS: Phenomenological reports related a significant decrease of mental divagation in RM compared to R and RMR (p=0.002), as well as decrease of reactivity about sound in RM and RMR compared to R (p=0.035 and 0.002 respectively). Stimuli were experienced as more salient in R and RM1 conditions than RM2, RM3 and RMR. As expected, stimuli comparison showed that ERP evoked by infrequent stimuli presented highly significant increase of N120 (p<0.01) and P200 (p<0.01) amplitudes over centro-frontal regions in R and RM conditions. This was correlated to self-report quotes that indicated a more salient experience of infrequent stimuli compared to frequent ones. Condition comparison showed a decreased N120 in RM compared to R (p<0.05). Post-hoc analysis revealed that differences were marked over centro-frontal regions in RM2 and RM3 with respect to R (p<0.001). We observed also a decrease of P2 amplitude in RM3 compared to RM1 and RM2 (p<0.001). Moreover, we found highly significant change in ERP response from 450 to 750 ms between R, RM and RMR (p<0.001). These differences were localized over occipito-parietal regions and specific to a decreased potential in RM3 and RMR compared to R and RM2 (p<0.01), with a stimuli x condition interaction (p<0.01). From dynamic measures, this last result was associated to an increased α-ERSP and decreased α-ITC in RM3 and RMR compared to R and RM2. Finally, RM2 and RM3 was characterized by an increase of β-ERSP over parietal regions, compared to RMR (p<0.001).
DISCUSSION: These results suggest that mindfulness is supported by β power, and would be related to the intentional effort to maintain an active attention to present experience. Moreover, focus attention to auditory stimuli seems reflected by increased late potential with a pure α phase locking whereas open awareness seems associated to decreased potential amplitude after 200ms. Finally, our data suggest that N120 was related to salient aspect of auditory stimuli, which diminish along conditions and could be related to habituation but also to an open awareness effect.
CONCLUSION: As characterized by a state of present experience consciousness, mindfulness is an interesting paradigm to understand complex physiological mechanisms underlying consciousness. Associating biological data to detailed self-report experience of meditators represents a promising way to approach dynamic mechanisms that do not easily fit in our models classically built on paradigms that do not consider subject's experience. This methodology would benefit to be consolidated by individuals correlations analysis.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank M. Petieau, T. D’Angelo, E. Pecoraro, E. Toussaint and E. Hortmanns for expert technical assistance. This work was funded by the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
References
Cahn BR, Delorme A, Polich J. Event-related delta, theta, alpha and gamma correlates to auditory oddball processing during Vipassana meditation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Jan;8(1):100-11. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss060. Epub 2012 May 29.
Lutz A, Jha AP, Dunne JD, Saron CD. Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. Am. Psychol. 2015 Oct;70(7):632-58. doi: 10.1037/a0039585.
Wiese W. Toward a Mature Science of Consciousness. Front Psychol. 2018 May 29;9:693. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00693. eCollection 2018.
Keywords:
mindfulness,
Phenomenology,
EEG & ERP,
ERSP/ITC,
brain rhythms
Conference:
Belgian Brain Congress 2018 — Belgian Brain Council, LIEGE, Belgium, 19 Oct - 19 Oct, 2018.
Presentation Type:
e-posters
Topic:
NOVEL STRATEGIES FOR NEUROLOGICAL AND MENTAL DISORDERS: SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND VALUE FOR PATIENT-CENTERED CARE
Citation:
Zarka
DA,
Cevallos
CE,
Cordier
H,
Petieau
M and
Cheron
G
(2019). MINDFULNESS BRAIN DYNAMICS DURING AN AUDITORY ODDBALL PARADIGM: A NEUROPHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH.
Front. Neurosci.
Conference Abstract:
Belgian Brain Congress 2018 — Belgian Brain Council.
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnins.2018.95.00075
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
29 Aug 2018;
Published Online:
17 Jan 2019.
*
Correspondence:
Mr. David A Zarka, Laboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics (LNMB), Free University of Brussels, Brussels, 1070, Belgium, david.zarka@ulb.be