Default Mode Network research

I had read Brewer's work
www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/22/1112029108.full.pdf
a while back but stumbled on it again, this time looking more closely at the graph on the second page showing decreased activation in the default mode network in meditators. I found it interesting that the decreases were greater for metta and concentration practice, and less for what they called choiceless awareness, which seems to be noting (from the text, "directly attending to whatever arises in one's conscious field of awareness at any moment").

This would seem to recommend metta and concentration, at least for DMN stuff. On the other hand, when doing the fMRI "no-self" feedback, which seems to look at non-activation of the posterior cingulate cortex, he recommended that people do 4 things: note seeing as seeing, hearing as hearing, feeling as feeling, and thinking as thinking (this from a buddhist geeks interview).

Just wondering if people had any thoughts on this.

I heard the interview as well, and also the previous week's with the Yale researcher. It is interesting to see that noting apparently works better than choiceness awareness for transitioning out of the DMN. So often people feel that having a word or a label is somehow crude and that choiceness awareness is a purer, more non-dual approach. I guess the question is whether someone who was really skilled at choiceness awareness could sit there and watch the self-referencing happen without being embedded in it at all. If so, how would that register on the fMRI? Would the activation of the DMN make it look like the person wasn't really being present? Or is it a 1-or-0 thing--i.e. if the the DMN is active, you're embedded and not present, by definition?

Caution signs abound here -- do we really know what it is we're measuring? fMRI measures blood flow, right? So how does blood flow relate to what's going on in the brain cells, the neurons, the synapses? These studies are hopeful and fascinating, but the instruments, whiz-bang though they are, are still pretty crude. TBD, but that's just MHO

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we were being a bit too bullish on what this stuff is telling us. The Yale guy was extremely enthusiastic, but it would probably be better if our neuro-researchers did their best to have pointy ears and be more reserved and Mr. Spock-like...

Scientists are people, too, and they get enthusiastic. It's good. But that's also why the process of discovery used by scientists includes validation, replication, and peer review. Enthusiasm and creativity drive innovation and lots of great research, though.

Skepticism is well advised. In this case, for the purposes of discussion, we do have a number of first hand reports from yogis who were in the study, i.e. who were in the tube. I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk by any means, but some advanced yogis found that particular feedback useful, or interesting at the least. I know Nick has talked about it, and Gary Weber. I'm sure this type of biofeedback will become better over time, if it ever becomes cost effective for the masses is another question. See the Go Blue project
tinyurl.com/7nkfr6v

For me, it just caused me to diverge from noting for a moment or two to experiment with concentration and metta a bit more. I found metta very similar to my simple pointer of "open."