Brain Dynamicity in Mindfulness: Body Area Focus Shifts Attenuate Connectivity Strength in Body Scan
Poster No:
1999
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Ethan Reiter1, Ai-Ling Hsu2, Li-yen Kuo3, Hsin-Chien Lee1, Pei-Ying Chan2, Changwei Wu1
Institutions:
1Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, 3National University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Introduction:
Body scan practice is assumed to rely on deployment of spatial attention to different bodily regions (Gibson 2012) in mindfulness-based interventions (MBI). Under this assumption, it is speculated that selective attention links to subregions of the sensorimotor network (SMN) in a time-varying manner. However, the hypothesis that distinct brain networks, potentially organized somatotopically, underlie attention to specific body areas during mindfulness remains unexplored. Here, we provide evidence supporting this hypothesis by demonstrating dynamic changes in functional connectivity (FC) during the body scan across three conditions: lower limbs, upper limbs, and face. The findings suggest differential recruitment of brain areas with sensorimotor and visuospatial functions, specific to the body part focused on during the body scan.
Methods:
21 Taiwanese adults (mean age = 44.1±14.2), mostly experienced mindfulness meditators (4 novices), participated in this study. 1 subject was excluded due to health issues. The study protocol was approved by Joint IRB at Taipei Medical University and informed consent obtained.
Participants completed a single session in a 3T PRISMA MRI scanner, including T1-weighted anatomical imaging and a 9-minute continuous acquisition, with 3-minute body scan intervals in a fixed order: lower limbs, upper limbs, and face. Participants were instructed to close eyes and focus nonjudgmentally on physical sensations in the designated body area during each interval.
fMRI data were preprocessed with CONN's default minimal pipeline and denoised in MATLAB R2024b (Whitfield-Gabrieli & Nieto-Castanon 2012). FC was quantified using voxel-wise seed-based correlation (SBC) with predefined seed regions of interest (ROIs) from the Harvard-Oxford atlas: the SMN Superior (MNI 0 -31 67) and the average of the Dorsal Attention Network (DAN) Frontal Eye Field (FEF) Left (MNI -27 -9 64) and Right (MNI 30 -6 64).
Statistical analysis was performed with a Friedman test (χ²₂ ₁₈, p < 0.001) to assess differences across the 3 body focus conditions, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons (T₁₉, p < 0.05) using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with false discovery rate (FDR) correction.
Participants completed a single session in a 3T PRISMA MRI scanner, including T1-weighted anatomical imaging and a 9-minute continuous acquisition, with 3-minute body scan intervals in a fixed order: lower limbs, upper limbs, and face. Participants were instructed to close eyes and focus nonjudgmentally on physical sensations in the designated body area during each interval.
fMRI data were preprocessed with CONN's default minimal pipeline and denoised in MATLAB R2024b (Whitfield-Gabrieli & Nieto-Castanon 2012). FC was quantified using voxel-wise seed-based correlation (SBC) with predefined seed regions of interest (ROIs) from the Harvard-Oxford atlas: the SMN Superior (MNI 0 -31 67) and the average of the Dorsal Attention Network (DAN) Frontal Eye Field (FEF) Left (MNI -27 -9 64) and Right (MNI 30 -6 64).
Statistical analysis was performed with a Friedman test (χ²₂ ₁₈, p < 0.001) to assess differences across the 3 body focus conditions, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons (T₁₉, p < 0.05) using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with false discovery rate (FDR) correction.
Results:
The within-SMN connectivity showed significant differences in FC between all 3 body-focus conditions to left pre- and post-central gyri (CG) (121 voxels; peak: MNI -6 -34 52) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 25.9, p < 0.0001, W = 0.65) as well as between the face and both limb conditions to the putamen (71 voxels; peak: MNI -26 -12 06) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 20.1, p < 0.001, W = 0.50). Pairwise comparisons showed greater FC to left pre CG and post CG in the order of upper limbs, lower limbs, and face (Fig. 1a) and greater FC to putamen for the face than both limbs (Fig. 1b).
The DAN showed significant differences in FC between the face and both limb conditions to right intracalcarine cortex (ICC), right occipital pole (OP), and right cuneal cortex (458 voxels; peak: MNI 16 -84 14) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 19.3, p < 0.001, W = 0.48) and between the upper limbs and both face and lower limbs to right pre CG and post CG (41 voxels; peak: MNI 30 -24 66) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 20.1, p < 0.001, W = 0.50). Pairwise comparisons showed greater FC to right ICC, OP, and cuneus for face than both limbs (Fig. 2a) and greater FC to right pre CG and post CG for both face and lower limbs than upper limbs (Fig. 2b).
The DAN showed significant differences in FC between the face and both limb conditions to right intracalcarine cortex (ICC), right occipital pole (OP), and right cuneal cortex (458 voxels; peak: MNI 16 -84 14) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 19.3, p < 0.001, W = 0.48) and between the upper limbs and both face and lower limbs to right pre CG and post CG (41 voxels; peak: MNI 30 -24 66) (χ²₂ ₁₈ = 20.1, p < 0.001, W = 0.50). Pairwise comparisons showed greater FC to right ICC, OP, and cuneus for face than both limbs (Fig. 2a) and greater FC to right pre CG and post CG for both face and lower limbs than upper limbs (Fig. 2b).
·(1a-b) FC from SMN seed ROI assessed by Friedman test (1c-d) Post-hoc pairwise Wilcoxon comparisons between conditions
·(2a-b) FC from DAN seed ROI assessed by Friedman test (2c-d) Post-hoc pairwise Wilcoxon comparisons between conditions
Conclusions:
The dynamic FC changes between body focus conditions from the superior area to the pre CG, post CG, and putamen support the hypothesis that body-specific brain networks underlie attention during the mindfulness body scan. Similarly, the FC differences from seed ROIs in the DAN to the ICC, OP, and cuneus suggest distinct visuospatial attentional demands specific to body area (Gunia et al. 2021; Nobre 2001; Dadario & Sughrue 2023). These findings suggest that brain networks recruited during the mindfulness body scan are specific to the focused body area, reflecting distinctive patterns of sensorimotor and attentional engagement.
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
Connectivity (eg. functional, effective, structural) 2
Perception, Attention and Motor Behavior:
Attention: Auditory/Tactile/Motor 1
Perception: Tactile/Somatosensory
Keywords:
FUNCTIONAL MRI
NORMAL HUMAN
Somatosensory
Other - mindfulness
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Abstract Information
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information. Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Was this research conducted in the United States?
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel? NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel? NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
For human MRI, what field strength scanner do you use?
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
Provide references using APA citation style.
Gibson J. (2019). Mindfulness, interoception, and the body: a contemporary perspective. Front. Psychol. 10:2012. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02012
Gunia A, Moraresku S, Vlček K. (2021). Brain mechanisms of visuospatial perspective-taking in relation to object mental rotation and the theory of mind. Behav. Brain Res. 407:113247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113247
Nobre AC. (2001). The attentive homunculus: Now you see it, now you don't. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 25:477-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00028-8
Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Nieto-Castanon A. (2012). Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect. 2:125–41. doi: 10.1089/brain.2012.0073