Attentional blink task.

<p>Subjects viewed RSVP streams of letters. Target 1 (T1) was colored red, Target 2 (T2) green, and the distractors white. T2 could appear at Lag 2, 4 or 10. In the prime present trials, a distractor (priming distractor, PD) with the same identity as T2 appeared at Lag2. All stimuli had different identities in the prime absent trials. Subjects were required to report T1 and T2 at the end of each stream.</p

Behavioral results.

<p>A: Average AB performance data. T2/T1 accuracy data are shown for each condition (prime present/absent) and T1-T2 interval (Lag) separately. As can be seen, in both conditions, a substantial AB was observed. B: The observed relationships between distractor suppression ability and AB recovery. For illustrative purposes, the raw (rather than ranked) data are shown.</p

Brain regions associated with conscious T2 perception (A) and body parts and natural scenes (B).

<p>A: Frontoparietal network associated with conscious T2 perception (<i>p</i><0.05 after controlling for False Discovery Rate). LPFC, lateral prefrontal cortex; SMFC, superior medial frontal cortex; PCG, precentral gyrus; IPS, intraparietal sulcus; PPA, parahippocampal place area; STRI, striatum. B: Localizer task data. The ‘representative subject’ map shows the 8 most active contiguous voxels for each region of interest (p<.0001). The ‘group data’ map is thresholded at q<.05 (or p<.0006).</p

T1- and T2-object specific activity during the localizer task (A) and the AB task (B).

<p>A: Selective activity in the EBA and PPA during the localizer task to bodies and scenes, respectively. B: Activity in the EBA and PPA during the AB task as a function of conscious T2 perception (blink, no-blink). While the EBA was equally active in no-blink and blink trials, the PPA exhibited significantly greater activation when T2 was consciously perceived.</p

The attentional blink task.

<p><b>Example of a trial.</b></p

Smoking urge scores.

<p>This figure displays smoking urge scores for the control group (black) and mindfulness group (gray) separately for the pre, post and final time measurements, as well as the final minus pre (final–pre) difference. The control group shows increased smoking urges over time, contrary to the mindfulness group.</p

Instrument scores and behavioral data for both groups.

<p>Instrument scores and behavioral data for both groups.</p

Effects of mindfulness on neural indices of response inhibition.

<p>Shown are grand-average stimulus-locked ERP waveforms for neutral (left) and smoking pictures (right) at Fz (Panel A) and Cz (Panel B), separately for correct Go and NoGo trials and the mindfulness and control group. Scalp voltage maps are shown in Panel C for mean amplitude for 300–450 ms. As can be seen, the mindfulness group displayed a reduced NoGo P3 compared to the control group.</p

Reaction time data_ Exp2_Fig5_Schutte_etal

Data corresponds to Experiment 2 and Figure

Probabilistic selection task data_ Exp1A_Fig2a_Fig3a

Data corresponds to experiment 1A and Figure 2A/3A