Article

Examining the Effects of Brief Mindfulness on Psychophysiological

Responses and Performance in Self‑Competitive Tasks
Noemí SanMiguel , Eva Laina‑Vázquez, Diana Abad‑Tortosa and Miguel Ángel Serrano *

Departamento de Psicobiología, Universitat de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] (N.S.);

[email protected] (E.L.‑V.); [email protected] (D.A.‑T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34‑963983456

Abstract: Mindfulness practice has been recognized as an effective method for reducing stress, en‑
hancing self‑awareness, and improving overall well‑being, influencing various cognitive processes
such as attention and self‑control. While extensive research has focused on long‑term mindfulness
programs, recent years have seen the emergence of brief mindfulness practices. This study aims to
investigate the effects of brief mindfulness on electrophysiological responses, and performance in a self‑
competitive context. A total of 52 participants were divided into two groups for the experiment. They
were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: a brief mindfulness practice (n = 29)
or a control intervention (n = 23), each lasting 10 min. Initially, participants completed a cognitive task
(Tower of Hanoi—ToH), followed by their respective intervention. Participants then performed the ToH
task again, with encouragement to exceed their previous performance. Measures were taken for perfor‑
mance metrics and psychophysiological responses—including electrodermal response (EDA) and cardio‑
vascular parameters. The results indicated that a brief mindfulness significantly enhanced performance
(p < 0.05), increased self‑efficacy (including self‑confidence and perceived task importance) prior to the
ToH task, and reduced the perceived difficulty of the task upon completion. Moreover, an increase in
EDA was found in the brief mindfulness group. However, no significant changes in the measured cardio‑
vascular responses were observed. These findings suggest that brief mindfulness can effectively improve
Citation: SanMiguel, N.;
cognitive task performance by enhancing self‑efficacy and reshaping task perception.
Laina‑Vázquez, E.; Abad‑Tortosa, D.;
Serrano, M.Á. Examining the Effects
Keywords: brief mindfulness; performance; self‑efficacy; task appraisal; electrodermal response;
of Brief Mindfulness on
cardiovascular response
Psychophysiological Responses and
Performance in Self‑Competitive
Tasks. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app142411692
1. Introduction
Competitive interactions are a fundamental mechanism through which individuals
Academic Editor: Alexandros A.
acquire resources necessary for adapting to environmental demands, as well as for achiev‑
Lavdas
ing or maintaining social status. The Coping Competition Model (CCM) proposes that psy‑
Received: 12 November 2024 chological and cognitive factors, including perceived self‑efficacy, motivation, and compet‑
Revised: 5 December 2024 itiveness, are essential in shaping individual responses to competition and in determining
Accepted: 12 December 2024 its outcomes [1,2]. While research frequently examines competition among individuals or
Published: 14 December 2024 groups [3], there is also a prevalent form of competition where individuals compete against
themselves, often referred to as self‑competition. In such cases, individuals strive to improve
personal performance, gain advantages, or surpass their prior achievements in specific do‑
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
mains, such as physical fitness, skill refinement, or academic pursuits [4]. In the context of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
virtual reality exergames, self‑competition has been predominantly studied; however, its ap‑
This article is an open access article plication in other domains remains underexplored. Self‑competition involves psychological
distributed under the terms and variables similar to those found in interindividual competition but operates in a self‑directed
conditions of the Creative Commons manner. Effective engagement in self‑competition requires particular attributes, including a
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// competitive spirit, motivation, and high self‑efficacy. Nevertheless, methods for enhancing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ performance through self‑competition are often unstandardized, with individuals employing
4.0/). practices they believe will be effective, despite limited empirical validation for many such

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411692 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 2 of 13

strategies. In practice, performance outcomes are influenced by a complex interplay of factors

such as effort, individual skills, psychophysiological states, and task difficulty. Thus, a com‑
prehensive, multidisciplinary approach encompassing both psychological and physiological
mechanisms is necessary to advance our understanding and prediction of complex behaviors,
particularly those involved in self‑directed competitive contexts [5].
High‑demand training plans and the pressure of numerous competitions create sig‑
nificant physical and mental stress in competitive contexts. These intense demands are
a common feature in sports, where elite athletes must balance preparation, performance,
and competition [6]. Similarly, other professional fields, such as teaching or healthcare,
also face high demands, with professionals reporting elevated levels of burnout and stress,
which jeopardize both personal well‑being and the quality of care [7–9]. In Spain, stress‑
related issues are becoming increasingly prevalent, with anxiety disorders affecting 63.6%
of women and 35.2% of men aged 20 to 24, according to the 2023 Mental Health Report pub‑
lished by the Spanish Ministry of Health. These rising figures highlight the urgent need
for non‑invasive psychological interventions to alleviate stress and improve mental health
outcomes across various high‑demand sectors. Mindfulness, particularly in the form of
brief sessions, has emerged as an effective and practical approach to reducing stress and
enhancing overall well‑being [10,11].
Over the past decade, a growing body of research has substantiated the positive im‑
pact of mindfulness on various cognitive processes, including self‑control, attentional fo‑
cus, and emotional regulation [12–14]. Mindfulness is commonly conceptualized as a
state characterized by non‑judgmental awareness and a receptive engagement with the
present moment [15,16]. Empirical evidence demonstrates that mindfulness practice ex‑
erts beneficial effects on cognitive functioning [10,17], promoting enhancements in concen‑
tration, attentional, cerebral blood flow, neuroplasticity, and connectivity within specific
brain regions [13,18–20]. The extant literature has predominantly focused on the effects
of long‑term mindfulness programs, such as the 12‑week Mindfulness‑Based Stress Re‑
duction (MBSR) training [21] or the 8‑week brief integrated mindfulness practices (M‑PBI)
program [22]. In contrast, there is limited research on the impact of brief mindfulness prac‑
tices, particularly single interventions lasting only 5–15 min, with few studies addressing
the effects of such short‑duration practices [23,24].
Although there are contradictory findings regarding the effects of brief mindfulness, some
evidence suggests that it enhances emotional regulation by reducing dysphoric states and in‑
creasing participants’ willingness to engage in challenging or negative situations [10,25]. Ad‑
ditionally, brief mindfulness interventions facilitate changes in attentional processes that
improve facial expression discrimination within socioemotional contexts [26] and bolster
self‑control mechanisms [27]. Evidence also indicates that meditation alters brain activity
in regions associated with self‑control—a process that intensifies during the execution of
complex tasks, such as academic work or Stroop interference tasks [14,19,28]. Thus, mind‑
fulness meditators exhibit better performance, higher expectations of self‑efficacy, and a
greater capacity for inhibition, demonstrating improved control over automatic responses
mediated by attention or reasoning [14,29].
In this context, performance—the ability to achieve a result using minimal time and
resources—can be predicted by self‑efficacy, as demonstrated in previous studies [30,31].
Bandura (1995) defined self‑efficacy as the perceived ability to cope with situations involv‑
ing cognitive processes and beliefs about one’s abilities. Thus, along with the practice of
brief mindfulness, significant changes occur in attentional ability and higher‑order cogni‑
tive processes or executive functioning [32,33], which improve individuals’ capacity for
adaptation and performance [17,23,34]. Furthermore, brief mindfulness has been shown
to reduce stress [22,35], fatigue, and anxiety [32,33], while also increasing intrinsic motiva‑
tion [36], attention and self‑regulation [37], attenuating sunk‑cost bias [38] and decreasing
negative mood, rumination [39,40], and mind‑wandering [41].
Capacity for adaptation, preparation, and better performance is related to arousal,
through the activation of the autonomic nervous system [34,42]. Regarding sympathetic
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 3 of 13

system activity, limited research has explored the relationship between mindfulness prac‑
tice and electrodermal activity (EDA). Facing novel, relevant, or important situations gener‑
ates an activation response, leading to increased EDA [43]. However, evidence on the effects of
mindfulness on EDA is mixed: while Ortner et al. (2007) reported that a 7‑week mindfulness
program led to reductions in participants’ baseline EDA from the onset of the program, Eris‑
man and Roemer (2010) observed no significant changes. Additional studies support reduc‑
tions in EDA during mindfulness exercises, lower baseline EDA following MBSR training, and
decreased EDA responsiveness to aversive stimuli [43,44]. While participants initially showed
a significant reduction at the beginning of relaxation conditions, a marked increase in EDA
was observed after completing both mindfulness and relaxation interventions [45]. Regard‑
ing Heart Rate Variability (HRV), which reflects parasympathetic activity and self‑regulation,
several studies have linked mindfulness practice to positive outcomes. Delmonte (1985) ob‑
served reductions in heart rate (HR) following MBSR training, although Erisman and Roemer
(2010) did not observe significant changes. Conversely, some studies have reported increased
HRV in participants practicing mindfulness meditation [46], engaging in mindful breathing
exercises [47], or performing coherent breathing as compared to spontaneous breathing [22].
These findings suggest that mindfulness practices, especially those incorporating controlled
breathing, may enhance autonomic flexibility and strengthen self‑regulatory capacity.
Therefore, brief mindfulness practice appears to influence various cognitive capac‑
ities, as well as both emotional and physiological responses, which may ultimately en‑
hance performance. However, evidence supporting the beneficial effects of brief mind‑
fulness practice remains limited. Consequently, this study aims to investigate the impact
of a brief 10‑min mindfulness session on performance, self‑efficacy, task appraisal, EDA,
and cardiovascular measures, during a cognitive task (the Tower of Hanoi—ToH) that
requires complex reasoning, learning, and attention, while encouraging participants to
surpass themselves within a context of self‑competition. The study seeks to provide new
insights into how short mindfulness practices can enhance performance and encourage
self‑improvement in the context of self‑competition. We hypothesize that participants re‑
ceiving a brief mindfulness intervention will demonstrate enhanced performance in the
subsequent task compared to the control group [14,34,38]. Additionally, we expect that
the mindfulness group will report higher self‑efficacy prior to the task and experience less
perceived stress and difficulty post‑task [29]. In terms of physiological response, we will
examine the effects of brief mindfulness on electrophysiological responses, anticipating
that the practice will reduce sympathetic activity, as indicated by lowered EDA, thereby
facilitating a more adaptive response to the task at hand.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
Initially, the sample comprised approximately 90 potential participants, each of whom
completed a pre‑selection questionnaire. Exclusion criteria included individuals with chronic
cardiac or endocrine diseases, habitual smokers consuming more than six cigarettes per
day, weekly marijuana users, individuals using other drugs (including daily alcohol in‑
take), athletes training more than 10 hours per week, and individuals who had experi‑
enced a “very stressful” life event (rated >70 on a scale from 0 to 100) within the past year.
All participants completed the Spanish adaptation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness Ques‑
tionnaire (FFMQ; [48]) to measure stable Mindfulness attitudes. Participants scoring ≤ 50
were excluded from further analysis. The Beck Depression Inventory‑II (BDI‑II) was also
administered, excluding those with scores ≤ 17. Finally, anxiety was assessed using the
Spanish adaptation of the State‑Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI‑R; [49]), and participants
scoring ≤ 30 were excluded.
After applying these exclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 60 young, healthy
participants (20 men and 40 women), aged between 20 and 29 years. The mean age (M) for
male participants was 22.67 years (standard deviation; SD = 2.38), while for female partici‑
pants, the mean age was 23.27 years (SD = 2.26). Drawing on the literature, this age group is
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 4 of 13

particularly well suited for assessing the effects of mindfulness interventions, as individuals
within this range are more likely to experience fluctuations in stress levels and self‑efficacy [50].
Body Mass Index (BMI) of 22.877 ± 3.211. Due to technical issues, measurement errors in psy‑
chological and physiological recordings (n = 4), and instances where participants were aware
of the experiment’s objectives, potentially compromising objectivity (n = 4), the final sample
distribution was as follows: 29 participants in the experimental group (EG) assigned to the
brief mindfulness intervention, and 23 participants in the control group (CG).
Participants were instructed to maintain their usual eating and sleeping habits prior to
the experiment day, and to abstain from alcohol, drug use, and strenuous physical activity.
Additionally, they were asked to refrain from caffeinated drinks, food, or tobacco for at
least two hours before the experiment.

2.2. Description of Experimental and Control Interventions

For the EG, a brief 10‑min mindfulness program was selected based on Erisman and
Roemer (2010). The experimenter, placed behind the participant, instructed the partici‑
pant, who sat on a chair, to close their eyes and allow themselves to be guided. During
the intervention, the main experimenter read the protocol (brief mindfulness instructions),
interspersing it with periods of silence and instructions regarding focalization on physical
and respiratory sensations, such as the state of full awareness of the immediate experience.
Example instructions included: “First, make yourself comfortable in your chair and take
a few seconds to notice your breathing”, “Now close your eyes slowly and concentrate on
your breathing”, “For the next few minutes, I’m going to ask you to try to think about full
consciousness …”, “… allowing any thoughts or feelings that arise to pass without clinging
to or dismissing them”, “Just focus on your breath”. At the end of the session, participants
were asked to open their eyes and after a brief recovery period, the experiment continued.
For the CG, an active listening task was assigned. Participants were asked to attentively
listen to an audio file about architectural buildings. Following the same procedure as the EG,
the experimenter, behind the participant, instructed them to close their eyes and allow them‑
selves to be guided. The experimenter read the protocol, including brief pauses for silence
(e.g., “During the next few minutes, I am going to read a text; please pay close attention, as
you will need to answer some questions about its content afterward”). Afterward, partici‑
pants were asked to answer questions about the material. Both protocols were matched for
duration, pause intervals, and tone of voice. The second experimenter monitored that the
instructions were delivered in a neutral, consistent manner across both groups.

2.3. Test of the Tower of Hanoi

The Neuropsychological ToH test was selected to assess performance in executing
tasks of varying difficulty levels that require complex reasoning, learning, and sustained
attention [51]. It evaluates key cognitive functions, including planning, working memory,
inhibition, processing speed, and mental flexibility [52–54]. These abilities are essential
for problem‑solving and adapting strategies, aligning with the concept of self‑competition
by encouraging participants to optimize their cognitive performance. To examine the ef‑
fect of a brief mindfulness intervention, each participant completed the task twice—before
and after the intervention. An initial training session was provided, and participants had
a maximum of 6 min to complete the task. During this time, both the number of move‑
ments and the time taken to complete each tower were recorded. The ToH is divided into
segments and requires participants to reconstruct a tower from its initial position on the
left post to a final position on the rightmost post, utilizing any of the three available poles
and performing as many moves as needed [55]. The task rules were as follows: (1) Blocks
could only be moved one at a time; (2) Blocks could not be left on the table or held in hand;
and (3) A larger block could not be placed on top of a smaller one. The objective was to
reconstruct the tower on the rightmost post as efficiently as possible, minimizing both time
and number of moves, starting with a tower composed of three blocks.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 5 of 13

2.4. Variables
2.4.1. State Mindfulness Scale
The Spanish adaptation of State Mindfulness Scale (SMS; [56]) was used to evaluate the
enhancement of present‑moment awareness within the State Mindfulness dimension after com‑
pleting tasks and interventions. This scale consists of 21 items rated on a Likert scale ranging
from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very good), encompassing five dimensions: awareness, sensitive per‑
ception of stimuli, subjective experience, curiosity, and conscious attention. These factors in‑
tegrate into a single overarching state factor, reflecting both mental and physical mindfulness.
The scale demonstrates a Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient ranging from 0.72 to 0.92.

2.4.2. Total Performance

Performance was calculated as the sum of the number of movements and the time
taken to complete each task compared to the optimal (ideal) number of movements and
time. When the observed and ideal values were equal, execution was considered optimal.
To calculate the optimal performance per tower, the sum of the time and block movements
used was divided by the sum of the ideal movements and ideal time. A resulting value of
1 indicates optimal performance. To determine the ideal number of movements (X) and
ideal time (Y), the algorithm for the ToH (2^n − 1) was applied, where n is the number of
blocks in each tower. For each tower, performance (Pt_n) was calculated following equa‑
tion: Pt_n = ((x_(n + y_n )))/((X + Y)), where x_n is the actual number of movements and
y_n is the time taken for each tower; and (X) and (Y) are derived by applying the equa‑
tion 2^n − 1 for each variable. The Total Performance (TP) score was then calculated as
TP = (∑_(i = 1)^n〖TPt〗_i)/n, where “i” represents the performance score for each tower,
and n is the total number of towers achieved. When TP equals 1, it signifies optimal per‑
formance, while values further from 1 indicate lower performance.

2.4.3. Self‑Efficacy
To measure self‑efficacy, three questions assessing participants’ expectations were em‑
ployed (e.g., “What importance does it have for you to carry out this task successfully?”),
based on previous studies [57,58]. These questions, rated on a scale of 0 to 100, assess three
components of self‑efficacy: perceived importance, confidence, and ability to perform the
task successfully. The scale was administered twice, once just prior to each task. Higher
scores indicate a greater expectation of success, as well as elevated confidence and impor‑
tance placed on task performance.

2.4.4. Task Appraisal

After completing each task, participants responded to four questions designed to as‑
sess their subjective appraisal of the task, based on previous research [57,58]. Participants
answered these questions (e.g., “How difficult was the task?”), in a Likert scale of (0 to 100)
twice, immediately after each task. Difficulty, stress, frustration, and perceived effort fac‑
tors were measured. Higher scores represent a higher level of perceived difficulty, stress,
frustration, and effort.

2.5. Physiological Variables

2.5.1. Electrodermal Activity
EDA was acquired and digitized at 400 Hz [59] using PowerLab/16SP Hardware (ADIn‑
struments) and LabChart Software version 5.2. EDA was recorded through two Ag/AgCl
electrodes placed on the index and middle fingers of the non‑dominant hand. The record‑
ing range was set at 40 µS, and an initial baseline correction (“subject zero”) was applied
to subtract the participant’s absolute EDA level from all subsequent measurements [60].
Signal analysis was conducted using 5‑min segments extracted from the midpoint of each
experimental phase. EDA reflects the participant’s psychological arousal or their percep‑
tion of the task’s significance, serving as a measure of autonomic activation in response to
its demands. Specifically, we analyzed the mean EDA (EDAmean ) as a measure of sympa‑
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 6 of 13

thetic nervous system activity during each period. Higher EDAmean values indicate greater
sympathetic activation, which is associated with increased cognitive arousal.

2.5.2. Cardiovascular Measures

The cardiovascular measures were recorded using three adhesive foam electrodes
with conductive hydrogel. The signal was acquired and digitalized at 1000 Hz using Pow‑
erLab/16SP hardware (Castle Hill, ADInstruments, Bella Vista, Australia) and LabChart
software version 5.2. Data were filtered using a 1 Hz low‑pass digital filter; after that, the
ECG was visually inspected, and abnormal data were edited. Finally, the ECG was ana‑
lyzed using Kubios Analysis software 2.2 (Biomedical Signal Analysis Group, University
of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland; Tarvanien 2014 [61]). In accordance with Task Force (1996)
recommendations for HRV [62], we used the first 5 min of recorded data as a habitua‑
tion period and analyzed cardiovascular parameters using the last 5 min. Power spectral
analyses of HRV were calculated by means of Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) to ex‑
tract frequency domain measures. Spectral power density was expressed in absolute units
(ms2/Hz). This study computed the LF band (between 0.04 and 0.15 Hz), which is an index
of the baroreflex function and could be interpreted as both sympathetic and parasympa‑
thetic control [63]; and the HF band (between 0.15 and 0.40 Hz), which reflects the RSA and
can be taken as an index of parasympathetic control, and the ratio of the low‑frequency and
high‑frequency powers (LF/HF) were measured.

2.6. Procedure
All the experimental sessions were conducted from Monday to Friday, between 15:00
and 21:00, in order to control circadian cycles and their effects on the cardiovascular re‑
sponse [58]. Each session was conducted individually and lasted approximately 2 hours.
The procedure was carried out by two experimenters, one occupying the role of a principal
experimenter and the other in the role of a secondary experimenter, responsible for con‑
trolling physiological measures. While entering the laboratory, participants were asked
to read and, if they agreed, sign the informed consent approved by the Research Ethics
Committee of the University of València (H1393232860606). Once the consent was signed,
electrodes were placed, and the experimental protocol commenced. Meanwhile, the sec‑
ond experimenter was positioned at the back of the room to monitor compliance with the
protocol and provide support. Notably, the principal researcher was trained to give in‑
structions during the protocol in an aseptic manner in both groups. In addition, to enhance
the protocol control, the secondary experimenter ensured objective compliance.
The session started with a 5‑min habituation phase. Subsequently, participants com‑
pleted a sociodemographic and psychological questionnaire, which assessed depression,
anxiety, mindfulness traits, and state. Afterward, the neuropsychological test of the ToH
was administered as the first task (T1), followed by a 5‑min period in which participants
completed a post‑task questionnaire that included questions about their performance and
perceptions of the task characteristics. Immediately afterward, the BM intervention was
administered to the EG, while the CG engaged in an attentional task. Both interventions
lasted 10 min. Once the intervention was completed, participants filled out a battery of
questionnaires about their feelings. Eventually, participants were asked to perform the
ToH again as the second task (T2). For this T2, the researcher enthusiastically encouraged
participants to surpass their T1 performance. After completing this phase, participants
filled out a battery of post‑task questionnaires assessing task appraisal. At the end of the
session, each participant was thanked for their collaboration, and the importance of confi‑
dentiality was emphasized, with no information regarding the experiment shared.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

To identify and remove outliers in variables measured only once, a 2.5 standard de‑
viation criterion was applied. For variables measured multiple times, the Mahalanobis
distance method was used with a significance threshold of p < 0.001. The Kolmogorov–
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 7 of 13

Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction was employed to assess normality. The stress vari‑
able and EDAmean did not follow a normal distribution and were therefore normalized
using a log10 transformation [64].
To examine group differences in trait variables (depression, anxiety, and MF‑t) and
baseline values of the repeated measures variables (MF‑s and EDAmean ), an independent
samples t‑test was conducted. Differences between the experimental group (EG) and con‑
trol group (CG) across experimental moments (T1, Intervention, and T2) were analyzed
using mixed ANOVAs. This approach allowed us to identify whether changes over time
differed between groups. Effect sizes (partial eta squared, η2p) and statistical power (β‑1)
were reported to assess the strength and reliability of the findings. Post hoc comparisons
were conducted using t‑tests to clarify specific group differences.
The alpha significance level was set at 0.05. All analyses were performed with IBM
SPSS Statistics 29.

3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analysis
Our sample was composed of 60 young, healthy participants (20 men and 40 women),
aged between 20 and 29 years old. T‑tests of independent samples were performed to
verify that both groups were homogeneous in the trait variables (MF‑t, BDI, and STAI‑
t), baseline variables of each repeated measure (EDAmean and MF‑s), and the variables of
BMI and TP. Significant differences were found in the psychological variables MF‑e during
the baseline (t_50 = −2.068, p = 0.044). These differences were taken into account during
further analyses to control for potential confounding effects; however, no differences were
observed in the remaining variables when using MF‑e as a covariate.

3.2. Mindfulness Status

A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to evaluate differences in the Mind‑
fulness status (MF‑s) variable, with “condition” as the inter‑subject factor and “moment”
as the intra‑subject factor. The results indicated significant differences in the interaction
between condition and moment (F (2,100) = 10.997, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.180, β‑1 = 0.986),
suggesting differences in mindfulness levels between EG and CG during the interven‑
tion period (EG = 83.86 ± 2.40, CG = 70.69 ± 2.70). Further analysis revealed that the
EG has manifested a significantly greater mindfulness state during the intervention phase
(F(1,51) = 13.216, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed between
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15 the groups
at other time points (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Experimental and control group Mindfulness state score during the protocol. Score in
Figure 1. Experimental and control group Mindfulness state score during the protocol. Score in
mindfulness state levels (M ± SD) for the two groups: experimental group (EG; n = 29) and control
mindfulness
group (CG; n = state
23) at levels
moments. ± SD)
(MFirst taskfor the
(T1), two mindfulness
a brief groups: experimental group (EG; nand
intervention (Intervention), = 29) and control
second task (T2). ** p<0.01.
group (CG; n = 23) at moments. First task (T1), a brief mindfulness intervention (Intervention), and
second task (T2). ** p < 0.01.
3.3. Total Performance, Self-efficacy, and Task Appraisal Variables
The effects of the intervention on task performance and perception were assessed
(see Table 1). Two indices were obtained corresponding to the TP for each task performed
by each group: one for TP at T1 and another for TP at T2. The repeated measures ANOVA
indicated a statistically significant interaction effect between condition and moment (F
(1.48) = 5.005, p = 0.030, η2p = 0.093, β-1 = .592). No significant differences were observed
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 8 of 13

3.3. Total Performance, Self‑Efficacy, and Task Appraisal Variables

The effects of the intervention on task performance and perception were assessed
(see Table 1). Two indices were obtained corresponding to the TP for each task performed by
each group: one for TP at T1 and another for TP at T2. The repeated measures ANOVA indi‑
cated a statistically significant interaction effect between condition and moment (F (1.48) = 5.005,
p = 0.030, η2p = 0.093, β‑1 = 0.592). No significant differences were observed between groups
at T1. Conversely, at T2, a significant difference emerged, with the EG outperforming the
CG (t = −5.85, p < 0.01).

Table 1. Score differences on Total Performance, Self‑efficacy, and Task Appraisal in T1 and T2 be‑
tween EG and CG.

T1 T2
M (SD) M (SD)
EG CG EG CG
Total Performance 1.67 (0.76) 1.75 (0.70) 0.97 (0.39) ** 1.55 (0.26)
Self‑efficacy
Success 72.41 (16.40) 78.18 (15.31) 67.93 (14.23) 64.55 (21.76)
Task Importance 55.93 (27.17) 65.45 (21.76) 58.66 (21.23) * 56.82 (21.90)
Confidence 65.17 (19.93) 80.91 (16.59) 68.97 (18.39) * 62.27 (24.86)
Task appraisal
Task Difficulty 7.79 (0.86) 7.18 (0.95) 7.45 (1.54) * 7.86 (1.12)
Stress 0.81 (0.16) 0.74 (0.24) 0.86 (0.10) 0.89 (0.06)
Perceived Effort 7.69 (1.07) 7.35 (1.66) 7.69 (1.22) 7.96 (1.18)
Frustration 7.07 (2.18) 6.61 (3.01) 6.45 (2.81) 6.00 (2.70)
Note: Total Performance, Self‑efficacy (Success, Confidence, Task Importance), and Task appraisal (Task Diffi‑
culty values, Stress, Perceived Effort, and Frustration) are represented as M and SD. Differences between con‑
dition groups (EG and CG) were calculated by repeated measures ANOVA analyses. The stress variable was
transformed using log10. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

The analysis of self‑efficacy involved the examination of the following variables: suc‑
cess, importance, and confidence. The repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant ef‑
fect for the interaction “condition–moment” for both confidence (F (1.49) = 15.944, p < 0.001,
η2p = 0.245, β‑1 = 0.975) and importance (F (1.49) = 10.735, p = 0.002, η2p = 0.180, β‑1 = 0.895).
No significant effect was observed for success.
Finally, task appraisal was analyzed through the variables stress, perceived difficulty,
perceived effort, and frustration. The repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a signifi‑
cant effect for the interaction “condition–moment” for difficulty (F (1.49) = 10.735, p = 0.002,
η2p = 0.180, β‑1 = 0.895) showing a reduction in perceived difficulty among the EG. The
variables of stress, perceived effort, and frustration did not reveal significant differences
when comparing pre‑ and post‑intervention measurements.

3.4. Physiological Variables

3.4.1. Electrodermal Activity
ANOVA for EDAmean showed a significant interaction between condition and mo‑
ment (F (2.88) = 3.331, p = 0.040, η2p = 0.070, β‑1 = 0.508). As is reflected in Table 2, both
groups had a similar mean of EDA during T1. However, in the case of EG, a significant de‑
scent in EDA was observed during the intervention, followed subsequently by a significant
increase during T2. However, post hoc analysis did not reveal any significant difference
between groups.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 9 of 13

Table 2. M ± SD values of indices measured from EDAmean and cardiovascular variables in T1 and
T2 between EG and CG.

T1 Intervention T1
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
EG CG CG CG EG CG
EDAmean 1.22 (0.17) 1.15 (0.16) 1.05 (0.25) ** 1.08 (0.22) 1.30 (0.15) * 1.22 (0.16)
Cardiovascular
parameters
680.93 688.59 750.11 690.91 688.88
R‑R Interval 759 (124.34)
(149.61) (96.10) (118.64) (142.96) (87.24)
HR 92.67 (18.86) 89.37 (12.75) 82.50 (12.23) 81.38 (12.47) 90.80 (17.79) 88.96 (11.12)
LF 61.62 (15.06) 60.69 (15.50) 68.57 (16.05) 64.40 (17.85) 65.57 (16.79) 63.87 (13.70)
HF 38.25 (15.00) 39.16 (15.52) 31.34 (16.01) 35.54 (17.84) 34.12 (16.54) 35.84 (13.56)
LF/HF 2.06 (1.33) 2.32 (2.57) 3.79 (3.86) 2.80 (2.54) 2.47 (1.29) 2.62 (2.83)
Note: EDAmean and Cardiovascular parameters (R‑R Interval, HR, LF, HF, and LF/HF) are represented as M and
SD. Differences between condition groups (EG and CG) were calculated by repeated measures ANOVA analyses.
The EDAmean variable was transformed using log10. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

3.4.2. Cardiovascular Measures

Results from the repeated measures ANOVA for cardiovascular variables parameters
(Table 2) indicated no significant differences in R‑R interval peaks (F(2,86) = 0.258, p = 0.683,
η2p = 0.348, β = 0.083) or HR (F(2,86) = 0.490, p = 0.575, η2p = 0.011, β = 0.120). Similarly,
the frequency‑domain indices also showed no significant differences: nLF (F(2,86) = 0.286,
p = 0.731, η2p = 0.007, β = 0.092), nHF (F(2,86) = 0.296, p = 0.723, η2p = 0.007, β = 0.094), and
nLF/HF (F(2,86) = 1.346, p = 0.265, η2p = 0.030, β = 0.270).

4. Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the immediate effects of a single, brief, 10‑min
mindfulness practice on performance, self‑efficacy, task appraisal, and psychophysiological re‑
sponses within a self‑competition protocol. This study was motivated by the growing interest
in mindfulness over recent decades, especially for its potential benefits in personal growth and
in professions that face high demands, characteristics also found in competitive contexts, such
as teaching and healthcare, where professionals report increased levels of burnout and stress,
compromising both well‑being and the quality of care [7–9,11]. While much research has fo‑
cused on long‑duration mindfulness programs, relatively less attention has been devoted
to the potential benefits of brief mindfulness practices [14,23,24,29,65,66]. Our hypothesis
posited that a short mindfulness session would enhance participants’ subjective attention
and awareness, fostering an immediate increase in present‑moment awareness.
Results indicated that participants in the brief mindfulness group demonstrated height‑
ened awareness of their emotions, physical sensations, and attention to the present mo‑
ment, as reflected by their scores on the brief mindfulness scale. These findings are con‑
sistent with prior research suggesting that mindfulness practices can promote immediate
shifts in awareness and attention [14,23,24,29,37,67]. This heightened mindfulness state is
often associated with improved emotional self‑regulation, a stronger sense of control, and
increased confidence [14,23,37,68]. In line with our secondary hypothesis, brief mindful‑
ness group participants exhibited superior performance on a second task compared to the
control group, suggesting that even short mindfulness practices can positively affect atten‑
tion skills and higher‑order cognitive processes. These improvements may translate into
better adaptability and task performance [29,34].
Moreover, the brief mindfulness group reported higher self‑efficacy—reflected in in‑
creased confidence and perceived importance—when facing the second task. Self‑efficacy
is closely linked to performance outcomes [30,31], and our findings suggest that brief mind‑
fulness practices may enhance participants’ confidence and preparedness for upcoming
tasks. This aligns with research connecting mindfulness with heightened neuroendocrine
responses and improved task adaptation under competitive conditions [69]. Brief mind‑
fulness participants reported feeling more prepared and adaptable, able to effectively nav‑
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 10 of 13

igate unforeseen challenges, and committed to expending greater effort, which has previ‑
ously been associated with enhanced performance [29,34] and to reduce stress [22,35] and
decrease in pain sensitivity [70,71].
Further, brief mindfulness participants experienced lower perceived difficulty during
the second task compared to the control group, supporting the notion that brief mindful‑
ness practice fosters improved attention and adaptability [32,33,67]. This effect likely arises
from psychological changes that enhance self‑efficacy and task appraisal. Physiological
measures also revealed distinctive patterns: brief mindfulness participants showed a sig‑
nificant reduction in EDA during the mindfulness practice, followed by a marked increase
during the second task. While no significant post hoc differences between groups were
found, the decrease in EDA during mindfulness practice suggests a reduction in sympa‑
thetic nervous activity, indicating a relaxation effect. This is consistent with findings from
other studies that have reported similar effects [43,44,72], although some have observed
contradictory results [45] or no effect [25], highlighting the nuanced ways in which mind‑
fulness practices may influence autonomic responses across different task phases. In our
study, the subsequent EDA increase may reflect a heightened readiness to undertake the
task, aligning with findings that associate EDA with arousal, importance, and novelty dur‑
ing task execution [43,73].
In our study, none of the cardiovascular parameters showed significant changes following
mindfulness practice. Findings in this area have been inconsistent; for example, some studies
found no significant modifications in HR following MBSR training [25,44]. In contrast, other
studies report the cardiovascular effects of mindfulness on HR and HRV [22,46,47]. Under
stressful conditions, participants practicing mindfulness meditation demonstrated an in‑
creased ability to lower stress levels and reduce heart rates. However, this reduction be‑
came evident only after the third session, suggesting that the absence of similar findings
in our study may be attributed to the shorter duration of mindfulness practice [72]. This
variability highlights the potential influence of factors such as individual differences in
mindfulness state and trait, as well as the duration and intensity of mindfulness programs,
emphasizing the need for further investigation into these physiological outcomes.
However, this study is not without limitations. The sample size was relatively small,
which may limit the generalizability and statistical power of the findings. A larger sample
size would help enhance the robustness of these results. Additionally, while steps were
taken to mitigate the influence of experimenter presence during instruction delivery—such
as employing a secondary experimenter to increase objectivity—this remains a potential
source of bias that warrants further consideration. In summary, the study provides em‑
pirical support for the immediate benefits of brief mindfulness practices, suggesting that
even short sessions can be valuable psycho‑educational and clinical tools for enhancing
task‑related confidence and performance.
Future research could expand on this by exploring variations in intervention dura‑
tion, assessing the applicability of brief mindfulness practices across diverse populations,
and examining their efficacy in managing stress or enhancing high‑level cognitive process‑
ing in preparation for challenging or stressful scenarios, particularly as interventions for
managing stress, enhancing high‑level cognitive processing, or preparing individuals for
challenging or stressful scenarios.
In conclusion, brief mindfulness practice influenced psychological outcomes (self‑efficacy,
task appraisal) and performance, indicating its potential as a tool for enhancing problem‑
solving capacities. The increase in EDA post‑mindfulness may also be indicative of adap‑
tive arousal that supports effective task performance. These findings align with prior re‑
search [14,17,68] and suggest that brief mindfulness practices can foster self‑regulation,
confidence, and an optimal level of activation, all of which contribute to improved task
performance.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.L.‑V., D.A.‑T. and M.Á.S.; Methodology, D.A.‑T. and
M.Á.S.; Validation, E.L.‑V., N.S. and D.A.‑T.; Formal analysis, E.L.‑V., N.S. and D.A.‑T.; Investiga‑
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 11 of 13

tion, E.L.‑V. and D.A.‑T.; Data curation, N.S. and E.L.‑V.; Writing—original draft preparation, N.S.
and D.A.‑T.; Writing—review and editing, N.S. and M.Á.S.; Visualization, N.S.; Supervision, M.Á.S.;
Project administration, M.Á.S.; Funding acquisition, M.Á.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of University of
Valencia (protocol code H1393232860606 and approved 08/01/2016) for studies involving humans.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author due to participants’ consent only for their data to be used for this research.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Laura Miñano‑Mañero for the revision of English
style and grammar.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Martin, K.A.; Mack, D. Relationships Between Physical Self‑Presentation and Sport Competition Trait Anxiety: A Preliminary Study;
Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.: Champaign, IL, USA, 1996; Volume 18.
2. Costa, R.; Abad‑Tortosa, D.; Alacreu‑Crespo, A.; Saiz‑Clar, E.; Salvador, A.; Serrano, M.Á. Looking for the Key to Winning:
Psychophysiological Predicting Factors in Healthy University Students. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Salvador, A.; Costa, R. Coping with Competition: Neuroendocrine Responses and Cognitive Variables. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
2009, 33, 160–170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Syafiq Bahrin, A.; Shahrizal Sunar, M.; Fitri Mohd Latip, H.; Najib Zamri, M. Chronology of Self‑Competition in Virtual Reality
Exergames: A Historical Review. Entertain. Comput. 2022, 43, 100513. [CrossRef]
5. Clemente‑Suárez, V.J.; Fuentes, J.P. Psychophysiological and Behavior Evaluation of Human Performance. Physiol. Behav. 2019,
206, 84. [CrossRef]
6. Campbell, E.; Irving, R.; Bailey, J.; Dilworth, L.; Abel, W. Overview of Psychophysiological Stress and the Implications for Junior
Athletes. Am. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2018, 6, 72–78. [CrossRef]
7. Poghosyan, L.; Clarke, S.P.; Finlayson, M.; Aiken, L.H. Nurse Burnout and Quality of Care: Cross‑National Investigation in Six
Countries. Res. Nurs. Health 2010, 33, 288–298. [CrossRef]
8. Brazeau, C.M.L.R.; Schroeder, R.; Rovi, S.; Boyd, L. Relationships between Medical Student Burnout, Empathy, and Profession‑
alism Climate. Acad. Med. 2010, 85, S33–S36. [CrossRef]
9. Taylor, S.G.; Roberts, A.M.; Zarrett, N. A Brief Mindfulness‑Based Intervention (BMBI) to Reduce Teacher Stress and Burnout.
Teach. Teach Educ. 2021, 100, 103284. [CrossRef]
10. Banks, J.B.; Welhaf, M.S.; Srour, A. The Protective Effects of Brief Mindfulness Meditation Training. Conscious Cogn. 2015, 33,
277–285. [CrossRef]
11. Argyriadis, A.; Ioannidou, L.; Dimitrakopoulos, I.; Gourni, M.; Ntimeri, G.; Vlachou, C.; Argyriadi, A. Experimental Mindful‑
ness Intervention in an Emergency Department for Stress Management and Development of Positive Working Environment.
Healthcare 2023, 11, 879. [CrossRef]
12. Hodgins, H.S.; Adair, K.C. Attentional Processes and Meditation. Conscious Cogn. 2010, 19, 872–878. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Jha, A.P.; Morrison, A.B.; Parker, S.C.; Stanley, E.A. Practice Is Protective: Mindfulness Training Promotes Cognitive Resilience
in High‑Stress Cohorts. Mindfulness 2017, 8, 46–58. [CrossRef]
14. Keng, S.L.; Tan, E.L.Y.; Eisenlohr‑Moul, T.A.; Smoski, M.J. Effects of Mindfulness, Reappraisal, and Suppression on Sad Mood
and Cognitive Resources. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017, 91, 33–42. [CrossRef]
15. Kabat‑Zinn, J.; Hanh, T.N. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness; Random
House Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
16. Demarzo, M.M.P.; Montero‑Marin, J.; Stein, P.K.; Cebolla, A.; Provinciale, J.G.; García‑Campayo, J. Mindfulness May Both
Moderate and Mediate the Effect of Physical Fitness on Cardiovascular Responses to Stress: A Speculative Hypothesis. Front.
Physiol. 2014, 5, 105. [CrossRef]
17. Creswell, J.D.; Pacilio, L.E.; Lindsay, E.K.; Brown, K.W. Brief Mindfulness Meditation Training Alters Psychological and Neu‑
roendocrine Responses to Social Evaluative Stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2014, 44, 1–12. [CrossRef]
18. Hölzel, B.K.; Ott, U.; Gard, T.; Hempel, H.; Weygandt, M.; Morgen, K.; Vaitl, D. Investigation of Mindfulness Meditation Practi‑
tioners with Voxel‑Based Morphometry. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2008, 3, 55–61. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 12 of 13

19. Keng, S.L.; Robins, C.J.; Smoski, M.J.; Dagenbach, J.; Leary, M.R. Reappraisal and Mindfulness: A Comparison of Subjective
Effects and Cognitive Costs. Behav. Res. Ther. 2013, 51, 899–904. [CrossRef]
20. Botella, C.; Riera, L. Mindfulness in Context: Achievements and Challenges of Mindfulness Based Psychological Interventions
from a Psychotherapeutic, Constructivist, Relational, and Integrative Approach. J. Psychother. 2016, 27, 187–202.
21. Kabat‑Zinn, J. Wherever You Go, There You Are; Hyperion: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
22. Arredondo, M.; Sabaté, M.; Valveny, N.; Langa, M.; Dosantos, R.; Moreno, J.; Botella, L. A Mindfulness Training Program Based
on Brief Practices (M‑PBI) to Reduce Stress in the Workplace: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Study. Int. J. Occup. Environ.
Health 2017, 23, 40–51. [CrossRef]
23. Creswell, J.D. Mindfulness Interventions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017, 68, 491–516. [CrossRef]
24. Norris, C.J.; Creem, D.; Hendler, R.; Kober, H. Brief Mindfulness Meditation Improves Attention in Novices: Evidence From
ERPs and Moderation by Neuroticism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 315. [CrossRef]
25. Erisman, S.M.; Roemer, L. A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Experimentally Induced Mindfulness on Emotional
Responding to Film Clips. Emotion 2010, 10, 72–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Quaglia, J.T.; Zeidan, F.; Grossenbacher, P.G.; Freeman, S.P.; Braun, S.E.; Martelli, A.; Goodman, R.J.; Brown, K.W. Brief Mind‑
fulness Training Enhances Cognitive Control in Socioemotional Contexts: Behavioral and Neural Evidence. PLoS ONE 2019, 14,
e0219862. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Kaplan, S. Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 480–506. [CrossRef]
28. Tang, Y.Y.; Askari, P.; Choi, C. Brief Mindfulness Training Increased Glutamate Metabolism in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex.
Neuroreport 2020, 31, 1142–1145. [CrossRef]
29. Moore, A.; Gruber, T.; Derose, J.; Malinowski, P. Regular, Brief Mindfulness Meditation Practice Improves Electrophysiological
Markers of Attentional Control. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 18. [CrossRef]
30. Pajares, F. Current Directions in Self‑Efficacy Research. In Advances in Motivation and Achievement; Maehr, M., Pintrich, P.R., Eds.;
JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1997; Volume 10, pp. 1–49.
31. Pajares, F. Self‑Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 1996, 66, 543–578. [CrossRef]
32. Zeidan, F.; Johnson, S.K.; Diamond, B.J.; David, Z.; Goolkasian, P. Mindfulness Meditation Improves Cognition: Evidence of
Brief Mental Training. Conscious Cogn. 2010, 19, 597–605. [CrossRef]
33. Zeidan, F.; Johnson, S.K.; Gordon, N.S.; Goolkasian, P. Effects of Brief and Sham Mindfulness Meditation on Mood and Cardio‑
vascular Variables. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2010, 16, 867–873. [CrossRef]
34. Lumma, A.L.; Kok, B.E.; Singer, T. Is Meditation Always Relaxing? Investigating Heart Rate, Heart Rate Variability, Experienced
Effort and Likeability during Training of Three Types of Meditation. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2015, 97, 38–45. [CrossRef]
35. Mohan, A.; Sharma, R.; Bijlani, R.L. Effect of Meditation on Stress‑Induced Changes in Cognitive Functions. J. Altern. Complement.
Med. 2011, 17, 207–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Oberleiter, S.; Wainig, H.; Voracek, M.; Tran, U.S. No Effects of a Brief Mindfulness Intervention on Controlled Motivation and
Amotivation, but Effect Moderation Through Trait Mindfulness: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Mindfulness 2022, 13, 2434–
2447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Tang, Y.‑Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, J.; Fan, Y.; Feng, S.; Lu, Q.; Yu, Q.; Sui, D.; Rothbart, M.K.; Fan, M.; et al. Short‑Term Meditation
Training Improves Attention and Self‑Regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 17152–17156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Hafenbrack, A.C.; Kinias, Z.; Barsade, S.G. Debiasing the Mind Through Meditation: Mindfulness and the Sunk‑Cost Bias. Psy‑
chol. Sci. 2014, 25, 369–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Broderick, P.C. Mindfulness and Coping with Dysphoric Mood: Contrasts with Rumination and Distraction. Cognit. Ther. Res.
2005, 29, 501–510. [CrossRef]
40. Feldman, G.; Greeson, J.; Senville, J. Differential Effects of Mindful Breathing, Progressive Muscle Relaxation, and Loving‑
Kindness Meditation on Decentering and Negative Reactions to Repetitive Thoughts. Behav. Res. Ther. 2010, 48, 1002–1011.
[CrossRef]
41. Mrazek, M.D.; Smallwood, J.; Schooler, J.W. Mindfulness and Mind‑Wandering: Finding Convergence through Opposing Con‑
structs. Emotion 2012, 12, 442–448. [CrossRef]
42. Thayer, J.F.; Yamamoto, S.S.; Brosschot, J.F. The Relationship of Autonomic Imbalance, Heart Rate Variability and Cardiovascular
Disease Risk Factors. Int. J. Cardiol. 2010, 141, 122–131. [CrossRef]
43. Lush, E.; Salmon, P.; Floyd, A.; Studts, J.L.; Weissbecker, I.; Sephton, S.E. Mindfulness Meditation for Symptom Reduction in
Fibromyalgia: Psychophysiological Correlates. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings 2009, 16, 200–207. [CrossRef]
44. Delmonte, M.M. Effects of Expectancy on Physiological Responsivity in Novice Meditators. Biol. Psychol. 1985, 21, 107–121.
[CrossRef]
45. Svetlov, A.S.; Nelson, M.M.; Antonenko, P.D.; Mcnamara, J.P.H.; Bussing, R. Commercial Mindfulness Aid Does Not Aid Short‑
Term Stress Reduction Compared to Unassisted Relaxation. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01351. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Azam, M.A.; Katz, J.; Fashler, S.R.; Changoor, T.; Azargive, S.; Ritvo, P. Heart Rate Variability Is Enhanced in Controls but Not
Maladaptive Perfectionists during Brief Mindfulness Meditation Following Stress‑Induction: A Stratified‑Randomized Trial. Int.
J. Psychophysiol. 2015, 98, 27–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Burg, J.M.; Wolf, O.T. Mindfulness as Self‑Regulated Attention. Swiss J. Psychol. 2012, 71, 135–139. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11692 13 of 13

48. Cebolla, A.; García‑Palacios, A.; Soler, J.; Guillen, V.; Baños, R.; Botella, C. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Validation of
the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Eur. J. Psychiatry 2012, 26, 118–126. [CrossRef]
49. Spielberger, C.D.; Gorsuch, R.L.; Lushene, R.E. STAI: Cuestionario de Ansiedad Estado‑Rasgo. 1994. Available online: https:
//web.teaediciones.com/STAI‑‑CUESTIONARIO‑DE‑ANSIEDAD‑ESTADO‑RASGO.aspx (accessed on 11 December 2024).
50. Chi, X.; Bo, A.; Liu, T.; Zhang, P.; Chi, I. Effects of Mindfulness‑Based Stress Reduction on Depression in Adolescents and Young
Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1034. [CrossRef]
51. Díaz, E.; Martín, A.; Jiménez, R.; García, J.E.; Hernández, E.; Rodríguez, C. Torre de Hanoi: Datos normativos y desarrollo
evolutivo de la planificación. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 5, 79–91. [CrossRef]
52. Schiff, R.; Vakil, E. Age Differences in Cognitive Skill Learning, Retention and Transfer: The Case of the Tower of Hanoi Puzzle.
Learn. Individ. Differ. 2014, 39, 164–171. [CrossRef]
53. Welsh, M.C.; Satterlee‑Cartmell, T.; Stine, M. Towers of Hanoi and London: Contribution of Working Memory and Inhibition to
Performance. Brain Cogn. 1999, 41, 231–242. [CrossRef]
54. Bull, R.; Andrews Espy, K.; Senn, T.E. A Comparison of Performance on The Towers of London and Hanoi in Young Children.
J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2004, 45, 743–754.
55. Schmidtke, K. Tower of Hanoi Problem. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 1–2.
56. Tanay, G.; Bernstein, A. State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): Development and Initial Validation. Psychol. Assess 2013, 25, 1286–1299.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Baggett, H.L.; Saab, P.G.; Carver, C.S. Appraisal, Coping, Task Performance, and Cardiovascular Responses During the Evalu‑
ated Speaking Task. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 22, 483–494. [CrossRef]
58. Costa, R.; Salvador, A. Associations between Success and Failure in a Face‑to‑Face Competition and Psychobiological Parameters
in Young Women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2012, 37, 1780–1790. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Parker, B.A.; Smithmyer, S.L.; Pelberg, J.A.; Mishkin, A.D.; Proctor, D.N.; Proctor, D.N. Sex‑Specific Influence of Aging on
Exercising Leg Blood Flow. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 104, 655–664. [CrossRef]
60. Hein, G.; Lamm, C.; Brodbeck, C.; Singer, T. Skin Conductance Response to the Pain of Others Predicts Later Costly Helping.
PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22759. [CrossRef]
61. Tarvainen, M.P.; Niskanen, J.‑P.; Lipponen, J.A.; Ranta‑aho, P.O.; Karjalainen, P.A. Kubios HRV—Heart Rate Variability Analysis
Software. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2014, 113, 210–220. [CrossRef]
62. Malik, M.; Bigger, J.T.; Camm, A.J.; Kleiger, R.E.; Malliani, A.; Moss, A.J.; Schwartz, P.J. Heart Rate Variability: Standards of
Measurement, Physiological Interpretation, and Clinical Use. Eur. Heart J. 1996, 17, 354–381. [CrossRef]
63. Berntson, G.G.; Quigley, K.S.; Norman, G.J.; Lozano, D.L. Cardiovascular Psychophysiology. In Handbook of Psychophysiology;
Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berntson, G.G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 183–216.
64. Field, A.P. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and Sex and Drugs and Rock “n” Roll); SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; ISBN
9781847879073.
65. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well‑Being. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 2003, 84, 822–848. [CrossRef]
66. Rogers, J.M.; Ferrari, M.; Mosely, K.; Lang, C.P.; Brennan, L. Mindfulness‑based Interventions for Adults Who Are Overweight
or Obese: A Meta‑analysis of Physical and Psychological Health Outcomes. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 51–67. [CrossRef]
67. Kemper, K.J.; Rao, N. Brief Online Focused Attention Meditation Training: Immediate Impact. J. Evid. Based Complement. Altern.
Med. 2017, 22, 395–400. [CrossRef]
68. Owens, J.E.; Schorling, J.; Plews‑Ogan, M.; Goodman, M.; Moorman, R.; Zaklin, R.; Dent, J. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Evaluating Mindfulness‑Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for the Treatment of Palpitations: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016,
223, 25–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Costa, R.; Serrano, M.A.; Salvador, A. Importance of Self‑Efficacy in Psychoendocrine Responses to Competition and Perfor‑
mance in Women. Psicothema 2016, 28, 66–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Zeidan, F.; Gordon, N.S.; Merchant, J.; Goolkasian, P. The Effects of Brief Mindfulness Meditation Training on Experimentally
Induced Pain. J. Pain 2010, 11, 199–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Howarth, A.; Riaz, M.; Perkins‑Porras, L.; Smith, J.G.; Subramaniam, J.; Copland, C.; Hurley, M.; Beith, I.; Ussher, M. Pilot
Randomised Controlled Trial of a Brief Mindfulness‑Based Intervention for Those with Persistent Pain. J. Behav. Med. 2019, 42,
999–1014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Morais, P.; Quaresma, C.; Vigário, R.; Quintão, C. Electrophysiological Effects of Mindfulness Meditation in a Concentration
Test. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2021, 59, 759–773. [CrossRef]
73. Sidle, D.A.T.; Lipp, O.V.; Dall, P.J. The Effects of Task Type and Task Requirements on the Dissociation of Skin Conductance
Responses and Secondary Task Probe Reaction Time. Psychophysiology 1996, 33, 73–83. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au‑
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.