Travis Frederick
Center for Brain, Consciousness and Cognition, Maharishi International University, Fairfield, IA 52557, USA.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 18;56(12):712. doi: 10.3390/medicina56120712.
Three broad organizing strategies have been used to study meditation practices: (1) consider meditation practices as using similar processes and so combine neural images across a wide range of practices to identify the common underlying brain patterns of meditation practice, (2) consider meditation practices as unique and so investigate individual practices, or (3) consider meditation practices as fitting into larger categories and explore brain patterns within and between categories. The first organizing strategy combines meditation practices defined as deep concentration, attention to external and internal stimuli, and letting go of thoughts. Brain patterns of different procedures would all contribute to the final averages, which may not be representative of any practice. The second organizing strategy generates a multitude of brain patterns as each practice is studied individually. The rich detail of individual differences within each practice makes it difficult to identify reliable patterns between practices. The third organizing principle has been applied in three ways: (1) grouping meditations by their origin-Indian or Buddhist practices, (2) grouping meditations by the procedures of each practice, or (3) grouping meditations by brain wave frequencies reported during each practice. Grouping meditations by their origin mixes practices whose procedures include concentration, mindfulness, or effortless awareness, again resulting in a confounded pattern. Grouping meditations by their described procedures yields defining neural imaging patterns within each category, and clear differences between categories. Grouping meditations by the EEG frequencies associated with their procedures yields an objective system to group meditations and allows practices to "move" into different categories as subjects' meditation experiences change over time, which would be associated with different brain patterns. Exploring meditations within theoretically meaningful categories appears to yield the most reliable picture of meditation practices.
（1）将冥想练习视为使用相似的过程，因此将广泛的练习中的神经图像结合起来，以识别冥想练习的共同潜在脑模式；（2）将冥想练习视为独特的，因此研究个体练习；或者（3）将冥想练习视为适合更大的类别，并探索类别内部和类别之间的脑模式。第一种组织策略将被定义为深度专注、关注外部和内部刺激以及放下思绪的冥想练习结合起来。不同程序的脑模式都将对最终平均值有所贡献，而这可能并不代表任何一种练习。第二种组织策略在对每种练习进行单独研究时会产生大量的脑模式。每种练习中个体差异的丰富细节使得难以识别不同练习之间可靠的模式。第三种组织原则已通过三种方式应用：（1）根据冥想的起源——印度或佛教练习对其进行分组；（2）根据每种练习的程序对冥想进行分组；或者（3）根据每种练习中报告的脑波频率对冥想进行分组。根据起源对冥想进行分组会将程序包括专注、正念或 effortless awareness（一种冥想状态，暂未找到完全对应的中文术语，可暂译为“自然觉知” ）的练习混合在一起，再次导致一种混淆的模式。根据描述的程序对冥想进行分组会在每个类别中产生明确的神经成像模式，以及类别之间的明显差异。根据与其程序相关的脑电图频率对冥想进行分组会产生一个客观的系统来对冥想进行分组，并允许随着受试者冥想体验随时间的变化，练习“移动”到不同的类别中，这将与不同的脑模式相关联。在理论上有意义的类别中探索冥想似乎能产生关于冥想练习最可靠的图景。
