Inquiry · Emotion and Performance · Part 4 of 4
Training Attention
Meditation is a family of practices, not a cushion. What each trains, what it cannot do, and how the whole argument could be tested.
By Orion QuinOctober 19, 2026About 26 minutes
The faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering attention, over and over again, is the very root of judgment, character, and will.William James, The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1, ch. XI (“Attention”), 1890
Quiet the noise, keep the signal
By now the argument is in place. Feelings are information with a job (Part 1). Pressure reaches the thinking mind and the body in several ways (Part 2). A handful of cheap skills help a person steer a feeling instead of fighting it (Part 3). This last part asks about the skill underneath most of them, which is attention itself. Can it be trained? What does the training look like? And how much of it follows you out of the chair?
The answer is plain and a little unglamorous. Meditation is a family of practices, not a single thing, and it is not only sitting on a cushion. Several members of the family carry over to the rest of life in small, measurable ways. None is a performance drug, a few carry real risks for some people, and attention practice earns a place on the list without earning the top spot. I also look at sitting quietly with a paper book, which asks something similar of the mind.
An appendix after the essay holds an idea of my own, labeled as a guess. If feelings are information, and attention is where that information gets used, then how a person performs may depend less on any one reading than on how several of them fit together. The appendix says how that could be measured, and what would show I am wrong. The essay is complete without it, and you can stop before it.
A family of practices, not a cushion
A warning before the guide. Most of us have bought the shoes and the energy gels before getting off the couch, and a field guide can feed that habit nicely. Read this one as a map, not a visit. The plain advice is to sit quietly in a chair and see what your mind does. Then build. Don’t over complicate it. Just start.
The word “meditation” covers practices that train attention, awareness and emotional response in different ways. What they share is rehearsal: noticing where attention has gone, and choosing where it goes next. People often describe the aim as learning to focus and to quiet the mind. Later I say what “quiet” can honestly mean.
Reviewers usually sort the forms into a few families, and the first two matter most for what follows.
Focused attention
You hold attention on one chosen thing, such as the breath. When it wanders, you notice and return. It trains sustained attention and the noticing of distraction.1
Open monitoring
You watch whatever arises from moment to moment without fixing on any one thing, aiming to recognize your emotional and mental patterns. It trains vigilance, non-reactive awareness of emotional tone, and labeling.1
A third family, loving-kindness and compassion practice, builds warmth and borrows from the first two.2 The table sets these and the other common forms side by side. The last column is the part that matters.
| Form | What you do | What it trains | Carry-over and evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focused attention | Rest attention on the breath or another anchor; notice drift; return | Sustained attention, noticing capture, disengaging, redirecting1 | The most direct match to tasks that need steady attention. Two weeks of training reduced mind wandering and improved reading comprehension and working memory in 48 students3 |
| Open monitoring | Observe whatever arises without choosing an object; note it and let it go | Vigilance, non-reactive awareness, labeling1 | Linked to broader attention and more flexible thinking. In 19 experienced practitioners, a session of it produced more flexible and original idea generation than a visualization session4 |
| Body scan and interoceptive practice | Move attention slowly through the body, noting sensation | Body awareness, one proposed route to emotion regulation5 | Indirect: supports reading arousal accurately, which the reappraisal findings in Part 3 rest on. Little direct performance evidence in the sources I read |
| Loving-kindness and compassion | Direct good wishes to yourself and others, in stages | Warmth, connection, kindness after failure | A meta-analysis of 26 randomized trials of meditation, 18 of them compassion or loving-kindness practice, found small-to-medium gains in prosocial emotions and behavior (SMD about 0.4 to 0.45); most trials measured only immediately afterward6 |
| Mindful movement (tai chi, qigong, yoga, walking) | Attention carried through slow, deliberate movement | Body awareness plus attention | A review of tai chi in older adults without significant impairment suggested benefit for executive function, with caveats about generalizing;7 evidence on yoga was not confirmed for this series |
| Paced and resonance breathing, with biofeedback | Breathe slowly at a set rate, often guided by heart-rate feedback | Direct settling of arousal; a regulation technique more than meditation | A meta-analysis of 24 studies (484 people) found a large reduction in self-reported stress and anxiety (g about 0.8); the outcomes were self-reported and the authors call for better-controlled studies8 |
| Mindfulness in action | Bring the same noticing into a task: the next play, the next sentence, the next patient | Steadiness of attention in real time | The bridge to performance, and the least tested. A pilot of a sport program in 20 distance runners found large changes in self-reported flow and cognitive anxiety; it was small, non-randomized and did not measure performance9 |
The grid is my own reading, not a published rating, and it shows one thing: no single form trains everything.
The skill underneath: notice and return
The repeating unit of nearly all these forms is a cycle. In an imaging study of experienced meditators doing focused-attention practice, participants signaled the moment they noticed their mind had wandered. That let the researchers describe four states: attention sustained on the anchor, the mind wandering, awareness of the wandering, and a shift of attention back.10 Each trip around the loop is one repetition of the skill. The practice is not the staying. It is the returning.
This is where it touches the rest of your life. In any task, what grabs attention is often a feeling: a spike of fear at a mistake, irritation at a colleague, a surge of excitement. The loop is the same. The feeling pulls attention off the task, awareness notices, and attention is steered back, with the feeling left where it is. That is the difference between regulating a feeling away and aiming it. I find it a relief, honestly. The feeling does not have to leave for me to do the next thing.
A constructed scene
A manager is three minutes from presenting a budget. She notices a tight chest and a mind rehearsing the worst question. She does not try to stop either. She puts attention on her feet and her breath for three slow rounds, notices the rehearsing again, and returns to the first sentence of her opening. The chest is still tight when she starts to speak, and the first sentence is where her attention is. An illustration of the loop, not a report of a real person.
From my own rowing (memory, not data)
In a straight four the bow seat steers by feel, since turning around to look throws the set off. Looking is the larger interruption, so attention stays on the boat itself. I would not call that meditation, and nobody has measured it. It is simply the nearest picture I have of this loop: attention kept where the work is, and a return, when it drifts, that does not wreck the set.
What “quiet” can honestly mean
The experience of a quieter mind is real, and several lines of research bear on it. In a widely cited comparison, experienced meditators showed relatively lower activity in the default mode network, associated with self-referential thought and mind wandering, across three types of practice, along with stronger coupling between regions involved in self-monitoring and cognitive control. The design compares groups at one point in time, so it cannot show that meditation caused the difference.11 The two-week study from the table found fewer mind-wandering episodes after training, by thought probes and self-report.3
What the wider imaging literature does not support is the idea that the brain simply turns down. Practice reorganizes activity: the noise goes down, the signal does not.12
The evidence in more detailimaging reviews
A review and meta-analysis of 78 imaging studies found reliably different activation patterns for four styles of practice, with some shared regions, but convergence was the exception.12 A 2026 meta-analysis of 34 studies and 700 people reported consistent activation across practices in areas including the insula and supplementary motor area, along with distinct patterns for each practice.13
How much carries over?
This is the question the field answers least well. The authors of the main review of attention in meditation said how far training changes behavior outside the laboratory remained unresolved, and called for longitudinal randomized studies.1 Evidence runs from lab tasks, where effects show up, toward real-world tasks, where it thins: near transfer to tasks that resemble the practice, far transfer to tasks that do not.
Tasks like the practice
A meta-analysis of 111 randomized trials with 9,538 participants found small-to-moderate benefits of mindfulness training on global cognition, executive attention, working memory accuracy, inhibition accuracy, shifting accuracy and sustained attention. Against active controls the effects were smaller, roughly g = 0.19 to 0.39. It did not find effects on processing speed, verbal fluency or episodic memory.14
Tasks that do not resemble it
Two weeks of training raised reading-comprehension scores by about 16 percentile points, compared with a nutrition class. The sample was 48 undergraduates, the test was modified, mind wandering was largely self-reported, and the mediation analysis was post hoc.3 In military cohorts preparing for deployment, working memory declined over the high-stress period without training, and mindfulness training protected it in proportion to practice.15
Accuracy improved; speed did not. That fits the idea that meditation reduces interference more than it adds computation, which is a reading and not a test. Both far-transfer results are small and involve tasks closer to attention than to complex skill.
In sport and other skilled settings
A meta-analytic review found benefits of mindfulness practice for performance in shooting and dart throwing, and concluded it looked reasonable as a complementary skill in precision sports, while calling for better trials elsewhere.16 A 2024 meta-analysis of psychological interventions in competitive athletes reported significant moderate effects for mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches, among others, then cautioned that those effects are not stable.17 Mindfulness has earned a place on the list, and nobody has earned the right to call it the top item.
The chart puts that in scale beside the tools from Part 3. Little on it is large, and the one result corrected for publication bias is close to zero.
The quiet book
Sitting quietly with a paper book is one of the oldest ways of giving attention one thing to do. The research is scattered across separate questions, and I did not find a study that tests quiet reading as preparation for pressure or sets it against meditation, though my search was not exhaustive. Three findings have the clearest sources.
Paper helps with understanding informational text. A meta-analysis of 54 studies and 171,055 participants found a small overall advantage for paper over screens (Hedges’ g = −.21 favoring paper; −.27 for informational texts), larger under time pressure and absent for narrative-only texts, with a great deal of variation between studies.21 Print before bed is gentler on sleep than a light-emitting reader: in a small laboratory study the e-reader reduced melatonin, lengthened the time to fall asleep and left people less alert the next morning.22 Book readers lived longer in 3,635 adults followed for up to 12 years (hazard ratio 0.80 after adjustment), but that is observational, and people who read books differ from those who do not in ways no adjustment fully removes.23
The rest is thinner. Lifetime fiction reading went with better reading of emotion in people’s eyes in one correlational study,24 a larger attempt to show one literary passage helps immediately failed,25 and a small imaging study of 21 students reading a novel is preliminary.26 A widely quoted figure that six minutes of reading cuts stress by two thirds has no peer-reviewed source I could find, and an influential claim that a phone within reach drains thinking capacity27 failed two replication attempts,28 so I use neither.
Why does it sit in a series about attention? As a hypothesis only: a long text holds attention on one channel, and when the mind drifts you notice and come back, which is a version of the cycle above, practiced informally. I did not find a study of whether regular quiet reading improves attentional control or emotional steadiness. It stays a side thread here, and I would rather say so than oversell it.
Try this: a paper book, a chair, no phone
Twenty to thirty minutes, phone in another room, ideally in the evening. Treat the drift and the return as the practice. Watch for avoidance, too: reading can be a way of not feeling something that needs your attention.
Evidence: modest and mostly indirect, as above.21 No study tests it as preparation for pressure.
Where this goes wrong
Evidence gathered into a hopeful shape owes you a list of the ways the shape can fool you.
Meditation is not always gentle. A systematic review of 83 studies covering 6,703 participants reported adverse events in about 8.3% of people overall. Anxiety, depression and unusual cognitive experiences were the most common. The figure ranged widely, from 3.7% in experimental studies to 33.2% in observational ones.29 The prevalence figure is itself debated on methodological grounds, so read it as a signal and not a rate. The signal is enough. Sitting with your feelings is not harmless for everyone, it can happen to people with no history of trouble, and a teacher or a clinician is the right call when it turns distressing. If it does, stop. Offer practice to other people as an option, never a prescription.
Quiet is not the goal. A practice that teaches you to mute a feeling has removed the signal and kept the hazard. The aim is to quiet the noise, meaning the unplanned wandering and the reflexive reactivity, while keeping emotion available as information. The mood and creativity research is a useful reminder: relaxed, deactivated states did not produce the best new ideas.30
Acute versus chronic. This series is about performance-type stress: a race, a presentation, an exam. Long-term overload is different, and telling someone who is truly overloaded that their distress is a framing problem is wrong, and unkind.31
Hype, small samples and self-report. A widely read critique argues that enthusiasm for mindfulness has outrun the evidence.32 Several of the most quotable results here come from experiments of 20 to 50 people, from one group, or from outcomes people reported about themselves, and the external-focus literature shows how an effect can look solid until it is corrected for reporting bias.20 The claim here is small: modest, reproducible gains in attentional accuracy, with the carry-over to skilled performance under pressure still open. If anyone sells you more than that by the month, keep your wallet where it is and your chair where it is.
Places to start
None of these needs a special room, cushion or purchase. Pick one and try it for a week. I am still learning all three myself.
Try this: five minutes in a chair
Choose one anchor, usually the breath. When your mind leaves it, notice, and come back without scolding yourself. Five to ten minutes is plenty. Don’t over complicate it.
Evidence: small-to-moderate gains in attentional accuracy across 111 trials;14 a two-week program with 45-minute classes four times a week plus ten minutes of daily practice reduced mind wandering.3 Real but modest.
Try this: move the return into the day
Add short anchors, such as one breath at a red light. Then put a cue inside the task itself, a breath, a word or a point to look at, so the return has somewhere to land when a feeling pulls attention away.
Evidence: routines under pressure show moderate-to-large effects with wide uncertainty;18 they are the most consistently supported item in the choking literature.33 The step from sitting to using it is the thinly tested one.
Try this: pick the form for the job
Focused attention for steadiness, open monitoring to see your patterns, a body scan to read your arousal, paced breathing to settle a racing pulse, loving-kindness when the problem is harshness toward yourself. Walking works too.
Evidence: the forms train different things;1 paced breathing with biofeedback showed a large reduction in self-reported stress;8 few studies compare forms directly.2 Sensible matching, little head-to-head evidence.
What this does not show
I would rather you hear the limits from me than discover them. This part is a lens, not a diagnosis or a treatment. Persistent or disabling anxiety or low mood is a matter for a clinician.29
- The evidence is modest and uneven. Many results come from small samples, self-report or a single group. The 8.3% adverse-event figure is debated. Transfer to complex skill under pressure is rarely measured directly.14
- Some things here are my own constructions, not evidence ratings. The practice-by-skill grid, the quiet-versus-signal figure and the reading meter are mine. A skim of the figures could make them look like findings.
- I did not find a study that tests quiet reading as preparation for pressure or compares it with meditation. My search was not exhaustive.
- The manager scene is constructed. It illustrates the loop and is not a report of a real person. The rowing note is memory, with no measurements.
And a few open questions I could not close. How much of the benefit of mindfulness training reaches complex skills under real pressure, beyond laboratory attention tasks? Which form of practice suits which person and task, given how few studies compare forms directly?2 Whether the surgical stress findings from Part 2 carry through to patient outcomes.34 And whether anxiety usually interferes with performance or usually reports on preparation, and when each is true.35
Back to the athletes
In the 1990s I tested athletes and treated the state of the person in front of me as noise to control for. I no longer think that. A number is partly a record of where a feeling had sent someone’s attention and effort, so the state is part of the measurement, not noise around it. I cannot prove that, which is why the appendix proposes a way to try to disprove it.
The question the research keeps returning to is not how to produce more calm, or more fire. It is whether the effort a person spends is going where the task needs it. A person can be wound tight and entirely aimed. A person can be serene and entirely adrift. Attention practice earns its place by training the loop underneath everything else, noticing where attention has gone and choosing where it goes next. The practice is not the staying. It is the returning. Its limits come with it.
The guest house from Part 1 is the picture I keep coming back to. Every feeling that arrives has a job, and the practice is learning to answer the door without being knocked over by whoever is standing there. I have not mastered that, and I would be suspicious of anyone who says they have.
When my attention leaves, where does it go, and what does that say about what I care about?
Start where you are, with the smallest practice that looks useful. Emotional skill is not the ability to regulate what we feel. It is recognizing what a feeling is telling us, judging whether that is useful, and directing attention and action accordingly. That is the end of the series. It is also a place to begin. For anyone who wants the research idea in full, an appendix follows.
Appendix: a testable guess about feeling, body and attention
The essay ended above. What follows is a research proposal, written in a different register: more careful, less contemplative, and my own. Everything before it was other people’s work. Here I say what I think it might add up to, in a form that can be found wrong. Skip it freely, and come back if the question interests you.
Most ways of keeping score measure the engine: output, speed, load. This idea asks for something they rarely record, which is the state of the person producing the output. It is a proposal, not a finding.
The simplest version you can try without any research team is a log. Before a task that matters, write down how you feel and how much you think the task demands. Guess how activated your body is, then check it against a pulse or a wearable if you have one. Afterward, write down how it went and how much effort it cost. This is the guess-then-check habit from Part 3, kept over weeks. It is private by nature. A log of your inner state is yours, and sharing it with a coach, a teacher or a doctor should be your decision, piece by piece, not a default.
The model running through this series says performance depends on whether a person’s state and attention suit the task in front of them, and that neither calm nor arousal alone should predict it well. I am not claiming a discovery. I am claiming a guess that can be checked.
Two ideas that are easy to confuse
“Alignment” has to mean something a spreadsheet can compute, or the idea cannot be wrong. It also has to be two things, because agreement is not the same as fit. Concordance is whether three readings agree against the person’s own baseline: how activated they feel, how activated their body is, and how demanding they judge the task to be. It is easy to measure. But a person can read a brutal task correctly, show matching high activation and still do badly because that much activation is too much for the job. And a skilled person can do very well on a demanding but familiar task while barely activated. Functional alignment is whether the person’s state and attention actually support effective performance for this task. That is what the hypothesis has to explain, and it is the harder one to measure. Concordance is only a candidate indicator of it, and one of the things a study would test is whether it is a good one.
The trap is circularity. If I call a state “aligned” because the person performed well, the idea explains nothing. So the state has to be scored before the outcome is known, and from things other than the outcome: where the session sits in the person’s own distribution of states on earlier repetitions, how familiar the task is, and the attention measure. Predictions are written down in advance, and every model is judged on sessions it never saw.
| Piece | A concrete measure | Why that one |
|---|---|---|
| Felt state | Three ratings before the task: pleasantness, activation, and “do I have what this needs?” | Cheap, repeatable, and the appraisal item targets the challenge-versus-threat distinction from Part 237 |
| Body activation | Heart rate and heart-rate variability from a wearable, against the person’s own resting baseline | Arousal is shared across feelings, so it is read together with the felt state, never alone |
| Attention | Thought probes or self-caught lapses during the task, or a short accuracy-and-speed task, kept separate | Efficiency and effectiveness come apart under anxiety, so accuracy alone can hide the cost36 |
| Task demand | Rated difficulty and stakes, 0 to 10, plus the type of task | Demand sets what a well-fitted state should look like, and it is the third reading in the concordance score |
| Task familiarity | Number of earlier sessions on this task type, plus a self-rating | A skilled person can do a demanding but familiar task at low activation, so fit depends on it |
| Outcome and cost | The result, standardized within the person for that task, plus rated effort | Perceived effort is a real signal of cost38 |
In plain terms, that is a journal, a wearable and a short attention task, repeated by the same person many times. Nothing exotic. The hard part is the discipline of deciding the scoring rules before looking.
For researcherswithin-person versus between-person designs, and the analysis stated in advance
Within one person, and across people
The two designs answer different questions, and mixing them is the easiest way to fool yourself. Within-person, repeated measures follow the same people across many sessions and ask whether, for each of them, better-aligned sessions go with better results or lower cost. That design can say whether alignment matters for that person. It cannot say the effect is the same for others, and a person’s sessions are not independent, so the analysis has to allow for that. Between-person comparisons ask whether people who tend to be better aligned tend to perform better. That can describe a pattern across a group, but not what would happen to one person if their alignment changed, because stable differences such as experience, fitness or temperament may drive both. If the within-person effect disappears and the between-person association remains, the finding is about who people are, not about what a session does.
The analysis, stated in advance
Record many sessions per person across a few task types. Fit a model of sessions nested within people, with results and cost as the outcomes, and with task familiarity in every model. Compare five predictors: calm alone, activation alone, heart-rate variability alone, concordance, and the richer state score for functional alignment, judged by how well each predicts held-out sessions and not by how well it fits the ones used to build it. Pre-register the scoring rules and the predictions before looking. A result counts only if the functional-alignment score predicts better than both the best single measure and concordance.
Here are the ways it could fail. Any one of them would be a clear result.
A study that could not fail in these ways would not be testing anything. And it should be tried in a classroom, a clinic, a stage and a field, because whether the same mechanism runs in all of them is a hypothesis of this series, not something the studies collectively show.
What this appendix does not show
- Both scores are one possible definition among several. Concordance is simple and computable. The functional-alignment score is not yet specified, and its design is a starting point for a pre-registered study, not an instrument. Neither has been tested.
- The distinction between concordance and functional alignment, and the six ways to fail, are mine. They follow from the work cited in the essay, but a skim of the figures could make them look like findings.
- The analysis plan is a sketch, a way a study could be set up, not a protocol.
This is the last of four parts. Part 1 is What Feelings Are For.
Sources
- Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163–169.
- Lippelt, D. P., Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Focused attention, open monitoring and loving kindness meditation: effects on attention, conflict monitoring, and creativity: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1083.
- Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781.
- Colzato, L. S., Ozturk, A., & Hommel, B. (2012). Meditate to create: the impact of focused-attention and open-monitoring training on convergent and divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 116.
- Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611419671
- Luberto, C. M., Shinday, N., Song, R., Philpotts, L. L., Park, E. R., Fricchione, G. L., & Yeh, G. Y. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of meditation on empathy, compassion, and prosocial behaviors. Mindfulness, 9(3), 708–724.
- Wayne, P. M., et al. (2014). Effect of tai chi on cognitive performance in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(1), 25–39.
- Goessl, V. C., Curtiss, J. E., & Hofmann, S. G. (2017). The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 47(15), 2578–2586.
- Kelemen, B., Tóth, R., Benczenleitner, O., & Tóth, L. (2025). Effects of group mindfulness intervention on high-level distance runners: a quasi-experimental study. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, 1556404.
- Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Duncan, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2012). Mind wandering and attention during focused meditation: a fine-grained temporal analysis of fluctuating cognitive states. NeuroImage, 59(1), 750–760.
- Brewer, J. A., Worhunsky, P. D., Gray, J. R., Tang, Y.-Y., Weber, J., & Kober, H. (2011). Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20254–20259.
- Fox, K. C. R., et al. (2016). Functional neuroanatomy of meditation: a review and meta-analysis of 78 functional neuroimaging investigations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
- Baten, C., Keller, A. S., Miller, C. H., & Sacchet, M. D. (2026). The functional neuroimaging of meditation: a quantitative whole-brain meta-analysis and systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 186, 106709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2026.106709
- Zainal, N. H., & Newman, M. G. (2024). Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials. Health Psychology Review, 18(2), 369–395.
- Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience. Emotion, 10(1), 54–64.
- Bühlmayer, L., Birrer, D., Röthlin, P., Faude, O., & Donath, L. (2017). Effects of mindfulness practice on performance-relevant parameters and performance outcomes in sports: a meta-analytical review. Sports Medicine, 47(11), 2309–2321.
- Effects of psychological interventions to enhance athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2024). Sports Medicine, 54(2), 347–373.
- Rupprecht, A. G. O., Tran, U. S., & Gröpel, P. (2024). The effectiveness of pre-performance routines in sports: a meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1944271
- Bosshard, M., & Gomez, P. (2024). Effectiveness of stress arousal reappraisal and stress-is-enhancing mindset interventions on task performance outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scientific Reports, 14.
- McKay, B., et al. (2024). Reporting bias, not external focus: a robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Psychological Bulletin.
- Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review.
- Chang, A.-M., Aeschbach, D., Duffy, J. F., & Czeisler, C. A. (2015). Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), 1232–1237.
- Bavishi, A., Slade, M. D., & Levy, B. R. (2016). A chapter a day: association of book reading with longevity. Social Science & Medicine, 164, 44–48.
- Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694–712.
- Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Berns, G. S., Blaine, K., Prietula, M. J., & Pye, B. E. (2013). Short- and long-term effects of a novel on connectivity in the brain. Brain Connectivity.
- Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: the mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154.
- Ruiz Pardo, A. C., & Minda, J. P. (2022). Reexamining the "brain drain" effect (replication of Ward et al., 2017). Acta Psychologica.
- Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., & Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 142(5), 374–393.
- Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806.
- Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 410–422.
- Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., et al. (2018). Mind the hype: a critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61.
- Gröpel, P., & Mesagno, C. (2019). Choking interventions in sports: a systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1408134
- Tam, A., Bateman, S., Buckingham, G., Wilson, M., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Vine, S., & Clark, J. (2025). The effects of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, 39(1), 77–98 (online 2024).
- Theobald, M., Breitwieser, J., & Brod, G. (2022). Test anxiety does not predict exam performance when knowledge is controlled for: strong evidence against the interference hypothesis of test anxiety. Psychological Science, 33(12), 2073–2083.
- Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: new developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168–176.
- Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Mind over matter: reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 417–422.
- Marcora, S. M., Staiano, W., & Manning, V. (2009). Mental fatigue impairs physical performance in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(3), 857–864.