Really interesting article:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837242/

Also of interest: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296/full

Article discussing the experiment by Jeff Warren, who participated in the experiment (and who has also written an NYT article about his retreat with Daniel Ingram): http://www.psychologytomorrowmagazine.com/inscapes-enlightenment-and-science/

Ha! so there's a massive increase in energy in the third eye region during cessation... shocking haha! Science
Just kidding, this is actually pretty neat.

Where is the actual study showing authorship, purpose, lab and methods for this claim to document "tempory experience of cessation while in the scanner environment"?

I linked to it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837242/

The relevant text from that link:


A qualified yes: recent progress and methodological challenges

By integrating evidence from neuroimaging with evidence of behavioral transformations specified in particular traditional descriptions of meditation practices, some important obstacles may be mitigated. For instance, in an adaptation of the Mahasi method developed by Shinzen Young, practitioners use the label “Gone” to refer to the “fruition” experience of cessation described above. According to Young, this kind of experience is not uncommon for advanced practitioners (Young, 2013). Indeed, in a recent study conducted with adept practitioners of this system, two subjects reported having a temporary experience of cessation while in the scanner environment. The methodology was unique in this experiment given that button presses were used to indicate temporal markers associated with peak level of clarity or contact with a sustained period of “rest” that follows ordinary experience of a particular sensory object passing or vanishing from conscious awareness. Using traditional methods of fMRI analyses, we were able to investigate the functional correlates of the deeper experiences of cessation in comparison to the more common experience of the passing away of a sensory object. The preliminary results suggest a number of very unique functional changes in particular brain regions that were similar in activation for “rest” in the other meditators, but the magnitude of the hemodynamic change from baseline was much larger. For example, the frontal polar cortex (Brodmann area-10), a specialized area for higher cognitive functions (Koechlin et al., 1999; Ramnani and Owen, 2004), showed dramatic increases in functional activity (>50% BOLD signal change) that were not as large for the other meditators. As interesting as this preliminary finding is, we can not simply say we found the neural correlate of cessation, but rather a potential neural marker for the experience of “Gone” in Young's system of training that is relative to the baseline state of mind wandering in this individual. Because of the limitations associated with traditional analyses, we are currently attempting to explore this state using more novel methods that do not require the state of interest to be contrasted with a state of no interest, such as state space analyses [see Janoos et al. (2011)].


I added the bold italics.

A Fruition occured during somewhere around my 5th round of scanning in the fMRI while at Jud's lab, and I mentioned it to them, but I never heard back anything. That wasn't what his study was focused on. They had a few EEG leads, some sort of BIS monitor I think, and the fMRI recording blood flow to the PCC as a proxy for function. I always wondered what it showed.

I had a few Fruitions while wired to a 128+ lead research-grade EEG while on my last trip to Jud's lab just a few months ago and I have the raw files for that, but the problem is that they are huge, many gigs, and figuring out the best way to analyze them has proved complicated. It is something I hope to work on this week. I have this notion that there should be some sort of synchrony, some convergence, some simplification of patterns just befor the event. I actually sat about 45 minutes, so I have the whole thing, with clear transitions between each basic vipassana jhana correlated on the extrapolated feedback that was provided visually as a read out during the sit. I will let you all know what I find when I analyze that.

Hi Daniel, Are you saying you were one of the two subjects (in that statement I've excerpted a few times upthread, starting, "In a recent study...") and you were in the then-lab of Judson Brewer, MD, at Yale?

Katy, the researchers are talking about their own study, not something that happened in someone else's lab, as you can see from the other link I posted.

Hi J C, 

You wrote in your opening post: 
In the 3rd link you provided (your words beginning "Article discussing the experiment by Jeff Warren (...)) you do not directly relate that Warren-link to your first Harvard-CUNY NIH link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837242/) as being the "study" in "a recent study(...)" until four days later, today. 


And:
1. By what way do you know that this January 2013 Warren essay concerns the same "study" in the November 2013 essay? 

2. And if the November 2013 Harvard-CUNY essay by researchers Davis and Vago, respectively, does refer to the January 2013 Warren essay by "journalist and meditation teacher" Jeff Warren (quoted language from his bio at Psychology Tomorrow Magazine), then should interested readers of the Harvard-CUNY article stating "a recent study [reporting cessation experiences within the scanner environment]"-- should interested readers reasonably figure out that they will need to go to the blog "Dharmaoverground" to learn that Warren's "study" is the study Davis and Vago intend? 

Writer Warren's essay is dated to January 2013:
How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
Home » Boston Massachusetts » How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
Jeff Warren | January 2013 - Issue 4 

Harvard-CUNY's essay was published online eleven months later:Logo of frontpsychol
Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 870.
Published online Nov 22, 2013. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00870
PMCID: PMC3837242
Can enlightenment be traced to specific neural correlates, cognition, or behavior? No, and (a qualified) Yes


4. Knowing that Harvard-CUNY's Davis and Vago's esssay follows writer Warren's essay by eleven months, why do you think of the 44 footnotes spelled out in Harvard-CUNY's essay, that Davis and Vago do not include a 45th footnoted citing Warren's work-- the work Jeff Warren published eleven months prior?  

You can see by this thread that just a few people guessed differently from one another and incorrectly from what you supplied as a potential answer as to what "study" may be meant by that key Harvard-CUNY sentence "Indeed, in a recent study conducted with adept practitioners of this system, two subjects reported having a temporary experience of cessation while in the scanner environment."

So I have those four questions and your knowledge of them in regards to the two articles you've cited. Thanks.

Katy, what I see from this thread is that you were the only one confused by the very clear language of Vago and Young's writeup of their study. They say that they are talking about their research. Researchers do studies, then they write articles about them. I do not understand what is confusing to you.

When I wrote "article discussing the experiment" in my link to Warren's essay, I thought it was clear that I meant that Warren's essay was discussing the study that Vago and Young wrote about.

1. How do I know it's the same study? Warren's essay mentions two meditators reaching cessation under an MRI in a button-pushing experiment in a study done by Vago and Young, which is exactly what the Vago and Young writeup says.

2. Interested readers of Vago and Young can just read their writeup, which makes it clear they are talking about their own research.

4. Vago and Young's citations are to academic articles, so it is unlikely they would cite to Warren's essay.

I didn't see a question 3.

Hi JC,
(Where is this Vago and Young study you mention now (excerpted here above) and throughout your post? Do you intend to say the Harvard-CUNY researchers Davis and Vago?)

You will find two other opinions in your thread, copied here below for convenience:

Therefore, what you offer as a proof that the study-- that 'it's in the article'-- is not a proof, meaning so far the truth is not ascertained, established or verified by your means to just read the words again. 


As a point: using the article (Harvard-CUNY, 2013, which you say is clear), where did their research happen and what was their study size and what were their methods? Use just your article.

Can you find that study data in this Harvard-CUNY essay (11/2013) or do you have to go to Warren's essay (01/2013)?

If you have to go to Warren's article (which you linked saying it covers the study in question) why do you think the researchers, who even footnoted Steve "Shinzen" Young's 5 tips (and Shinzen would have been their subject, if you were/are correct), why did they not add a 45th footnote for their other subject and fellow author, Jeff Warren, who also by your account is offering very relevant recapitulation of this "recent study")?

Exactly, JC. It is unstated, incomplete, left out, and thus leaves you/readers guessing. 


So to it remains a gap that Harvard-CUNY's Davis and Vago do not explain what study they intend when they when they write about "Indeed, a recent study [subjects mention cessation occurred within the scanner environment]. 

Harvard-CUNY's Davis and Vago make 44 footnotes to other works (including a footnote for non-empirical information such as from what would be one of their subjects (if you are correct), Steve ShinzenYoung and his five practice points), yet Harvard-CUNY's Davis and Vago do not link the "recent study" to a quite detailed account published eleven months prior by, if what you are saying were correct, is also a study subject (with Shinzen), writer Jeff Warren.

So there is incompleteness leaving readers guessing, which can effect anything from public funding to the integrity/rigor of this particular field of study to reputation reduction.


Edited 3x for format kerfuffle and purple-colored text.

Yes, you're right, I meant Davis and Vago. Sorry, I overlooked that.

If you look at Change's reply to you earlier in the thread, you'll see he put the language in bold that makes it clear that Davis and Vago are writing about their own work.

You are correct that the article does not contain much information about the study such as study size and location of the research. The article describes the results as "preliminary" so hopefully we will see more articles from the authors with further results on cessations in MRIs. If you look at Warren's essay, he describes the fruitions as being unexpected, so the study itself was not designed to look at cessations. Cessations just happened unexpectedly, and then Davis and Vago wrote about it.

I don't know if Young was one of the research subjects - I'm not sure where you're getting that. According to Warren's article, Young helped with the study. Young's essay is cited because it is used as a reference for the meditation techniques and is part of the methodology of the study. They're referring to "Young's system of training," so they cite to a summary of it. The way that citations work in these academic papers is that they are used to provide authority for points made in the paper. It would not make sense for an academic paper to cite a narrative account of the experiment written by a participant.

Okay, so here's an actual, scientific reason why your proof that only three people don't follow your "proof" ("...what I see from this thread is that you were the only one confused by the very clear language of Vago and Young's writeup of their study,") ~ is no proof and that if Change A changes his reply 30 more times and you have 30 more people that suddenly agree with you, you have no proof. This is important becuase you linked what you think are scientific studies and this is a simple, useful thing to remember about sample size and proofs:

  ∀n∈N, n^2 + n + 41 = prime number

So this means if you plug in natural numbers (N) into this formula, the formula would prove that prime numbers are validated by this.

And, indeed, you can prove this for many numbers and get confident that this expression is a proof for prime numbers.

But, how many numbers do you need to get through to see that this seemingly good proof is not a proof?
(Compare with: How many people do you need to state that the language ("Indeed, in a recent study...") is clear and goes on to say little in order to have proof?)

You may remember that you need to get all the way till 40 to realize, nope, that proposition is not a proof for primes.

So even if 39 people here in this thread said (and they didn't: 3 persons noted unclarity/conditional "If"/gap), you need to get a statistical bundle together for a proof like the one you'd like.

So when you write, "Katy, what I see from this thread is that you were the only one confused by the very clear language of Vago and Young's writeup of their study," you make not only false statement, but you employ a false proposition (see prime number example above) unless you can find your sample size to be true for many, many people-- and already you don't have that while still in the single digits of people replying.

This is why science has sample sizes that are large and backed up with data so that "trust" is nice, but backed by transparency-- like not keeping opaque, standing well on one's data.

And this is why I have questions about the Harvard-CUNY Davis-Vago "study", particularly in the line starting "Indeed, in a recent study..."
They offer to evidence or details of their work? You could not even reply to my questions about their work (number of participants, for example).

Other questions:
What are their criteria of "adept" meditators and how did they obtain/vet this population? Was it double-blind qualification for obtaining participants or did some "teacher", perhaps the Shinzen Young you mention, just hand picking people?



Why is my inquery relevant in general (in my opinion)?

Well, what is the are the results of being incomplete and unquestionably incomplete in their data and methods? 

There's costs and distribution of state public money for example, and the accountability ethic when using the public's money:

• What did it cost the CUNY (a state-funded school) to put X-number of of undefined people in a scanner? 
• What did I get for that payment and why can't I and other payers of CUNY-fMRI work in NY state that year, see the results of "a recent study"?
• How many homeless children (under 18) are there in New York City? Could an evidenced-based food and shelter service have gotten more money if CUNY did not?
• Who should be funded, an evidenced-based, stastical model or an unknown, fill-in-the-blanks work?

Now related to meditation and the rigor to study it scientifically:
People have limited time; what should they study?
Should people study something they can see the evidence of which for themselves or should people study something that they must fill in the blanks with faith in charasmatic persons?
If meditation were a pharmaceutical (and there's eveidence it can be), then should you take pills that have incomplete, guesswork studies or should you take pills that are clear in their evidence basis?


Back to you, becuase you linked these studies:
Again, what can you tell me about the study from the Harvard-CUNY paper you choose to cite here?
How many participants?
Ages?
Definition of "adept practitioners?
Who wrote the definition?
Costs?
etc


If you have developed some skillful attributes from your (presumed) meditation practice, you then may take interest in how "studies" of meditation are carried out and shared publically: Are studies rigorous, accountable and transparent welcoming all to review and scrutinize and improve (like open software) or closed and incomplete, subject to guesswork? 


edit 1x verbal flubs = /

I stand corrected - you're not the only one who thought it may have been unclear. I thought it was clear what they were talking about, but others may see it differently.

I already told you that that information is not in the paper. The cessations are only mentioned briefly as a preliminary result.

I share your concerns about open access to information and I wish the researchers had provided more information as well, but we only have that paper so far.

By integrating evidence from neuroimaging with evidence of behavioral transformations specified in particular traditional descriptions of meditation practices, some important obstacles may be mitigated. For instance, in an adaptation of the Mahasi method developed by Shinzen Young, practitioners use the label “Gone” to refer to the “fruition” experience of cessation described above. According to Young, this kind of experience is not uncommon for advanced practitioners (Young, 2013). Indeed, in a recent study conducted with adept practitioners of this system, two subjects reported having a temporary experience of cessation while in the scanner environment.

The wording here appears to imply that 2 subjects had singular experiences of cessation in the scanner ("a temporary experience", rather than "temporary experiences").

The methodology was unique in this experiment given that button presses were used to indicate temporal markers associated with peak level of clarity or contact with a sustained period of “rest” that follows ordinary experience of a particular sensory object passing or vanishing from conscious awareness.

It isn't unique in using button presses to mark phenomenal states using fMRI. It is true that is unique in studying "gone" reports, but this is trivial in the sense that every study ever conducted is unique in some sense.

Using traditional methods of fMRI analyses, we were able to investigate the functional correlates of the deeper experiences of cessation in comparison to the more common experience of the passing away of a sensory object.

This is unusual wording for cognitive scientists - it appears more like the wording that Shinzen Young followers would use.

The preliminary results suggest a number of very unique functional changes in particular brain regions that were similar in activation for “rest” in the other meditators, but the magnitude of the hemodynamic change from baseline was much larger. For example, the frontal polar cortex (Brodmann area-10), a specialized area for higher cognitive functions (Koechlin et al., 1999; Ramnani and Owen, 2004), showed dramatic increases in functional activity (>50% BOLD signal change) that were not as large for the other meditators.

The word dramatic is dramatic! "Very unique" also sounds rahter impressive. So the 2 subjects had a cessation each, and this event led to more blood flow to those regions compared with meditators who didn't have that experience. I am confused by this, as I would have thought it would have been a better to comparison to look within the 2 experienced meditators (one of which is very likely to have been Shinzen Young) and compare the "gone" (i.e. cessation) with the "less gone" (i.e. normally passing away).

As interesting as this preliminary finding is, we can not simply say we found the neural correlate of cessation, but rather a potential neural marker for the experience of “Gone” in Young's system of training that is relative to the baseline state of mind wandering in this individual.

It isn't clear why these results are interesting, and the authors haven't provided an argument. Leaving aside issues of statistics and reliability, they show the same networks are used, just an increase in blood flow to part of those networks. This implies not a qualitative change, but rather "more of the same". And I don't find it striking that one experience that one person has leads to different brain activity to someone who is having a different experience. And a further issue - with this design, you can't separate the subjective experience from the reporting of the experience - such as the excitement follow having a cessation and the desire to report it pressing the button.

Because of the limitations associated with traditional analyses, we are currently attempting to explore this state using more novel methods that do not require the state of interest to be contrasted with a state of no interest, such as state space analyses [see Janoos et al. (2011)].

This seems very much like hand waving - some magic fMRI analysis technique is going to solve the problems. This particular paper has been cited 10 paper since 2011, a low amount suggesting this is a technique that is not being used in the field, and I suspect the authors will not be able to apply it in this context.

One major problem in using neuroimaging methodology is that it is typically dependent upon the general linear model (GLM), a convenient method that flexibly allows for both linear regression and ANOVA; however, the model relies on assumptions that may not hold in all situations. For example, fMRI has a poor temporal resolution

Note contrary to the information that Chris Marti added above, fMRI is generally considered to have very good spatial resolution which is often cited as one of its main advantages. Its disadvantage (relative to other neuroimaging techniques, such as EEG) is temporal resolution.

limited by a hemodynamic response function for each brain response or “state” that is approximately 12 s in duration; any attempts at exploring discrete states within this timeframe is likely to be influenced by “bleeding over” of hemodynamic activity from the previous state.

This is true, which is why event related fMRI designs were created. Most work using fMRI these days uses these designs to study discrete states. Using such designs, the "bleeding over" issue can be largely resolved.

Furthermore, another limitation of the GLM is its dependence on creating a contrast between states of interest and some other state of no interest.

It isn't clear why contrasts is this context is a limitation. Contrasts just been you make comparisons between two states.

The assumptions and limitations are likely to fail

The above is a description of a particular fMRI analysis technique - it does not describe assumptions. The hemodynamic response is also not an assumption, but an aspect of physiology.

in attempts to capture the subtle changes associated with normative, but transitory, states of enlightenment.

Earlier in the paper it went to great pains to say what a terrible word enlightenment is, and just earlier they make sure they qualify a "potential neural marker for the experience of “Gone” in Young's system of training that is relative to the baseline state of mind wandering in this individual". Yet here they talk about Young's "gone" as a transitory state of enlightenment. This is odd, and it makes it clear to me that the authors do have a particular stance and bias on enlightenment - i.e. it is a transient state, like a cessation or a "gone", and it seems biased towards Shinzen Young's teaching. 

Also odd is that earlier it also describes "very unique functional changes" and "dramatic increases" but now it describes "subtle changes".

In summary, while I found other parts of the paper fine, this section of the paper is disingenuous. It tries to suggest that the problem is the analysis methods, when it is pretty clear the problem is the data scarcity, and that should have been made clear. You can't make meaningful conclusions from a single experience of a couple of people using neuroimaging, particularly fMRI (Daniel's EEG data is bit more promising). You need many instances of these experiences. fMRI has a poor signal to noise ratio, and a chief way to solve this problem is to have lots of signals and average across them to get rid of noise (and to help separate them from other signals). So you need lot of trials - lots of cessations. If they only occur every so often and are hard to reliably produce no voodoo "state space" analysis is going to solve that problem, and I suspect that the problems will mean that "states of enlightenment" of this study will never make it into a published research paper. It is generally bad form to talk in such detail about "preliminary results" in a published paper. It feels a bit like they know they can't really salvage much from it, but they were excited by the results and wanted a paper in which they can say "you can study enlightenment in the scanner".

Dear Sawfoot,

A solid and worthy reply. Thanks for that. I hope you are well.

I will let you know what I finally find when I get to take a look at the EEG run. I will likely hire someone to write the code to take it out of raw tabular form (about 134 voltage readings when the eyebrow/muscular leads are included per 1/2048th of a second) and put that into a form I can look at with what I have on my end, which is actually likely to be Logic Pro Studio, which is a program for doing music, but also allows all sorts of filtering by frequency bands and analysis of synchrony of waves and the like, along with direct visualization of the signals.

I am no EEG expert by any means, but I hope that my actually looking at it will allow me to highlight things that appear interesting to me and correlate with what happened internally during the run such that people who are EEG experts can then look at those areas and see what can be learned from them. I do have an expectation that there should be some significant signal phase convergence around certain points, and how this expectation will color interpretation rightly or wrongly is unclear, but hopefully the working hypothesis will be either confirmed or denied by the data.

In case you are curious, some EEG experts watched some of the raw data during the run, and I asked them if they saw anything that looked at all seizure-like, and they said no.

Be well and Happy New Year,

Daniel

Personally for reasons other than just meditation Ive been curious to build an EEG. There is a game where one competes by relaxing the brain to move a ball. Im personally very curious on if and how EEG can help in developing mental faculties. There are a few projects online for homemade EEGs. In the series StarGate they use a sensor to evaluate a persons state of "enlightenment". A tool for training oneself.
There a number of sites for those interested in EEGs and there is software etc for lne to use.

http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/
http://m.instructables.com/id/DIY-EEG-and-ECG-Circuit/
http://eeghacker.blogspot.se/

What Jud and crew are developing is using 128 leads with a few muscle leads and a beam-forming EEG processing algorhithm that they think allows them to extrapolate a signal at a specific band from the PCC, which is sort of in the middle of the brain, and then use the strength of that signal as a proxy for PCC activation, which is correlated with non-present centered attention in their view, and this theory tested really quite well in practice. I actually had about 9.5 total hours to play when wired up and so we got to put through all sorts of tests to see how the thing correlated with various things I did: loads of fun!

What was amazing is that the thing responded almost exactly like the fMRI, but with only about a 1 second delay rather than about an 8 second delay, and it really tracked state shifts quite well, with almost linear dose-responses between jhanas, such that deepening into the first jhana would push the thing in a direction about one unit, and deepening another jhanic level would push it another unit etc. Amazing!

They hope to get this down to about 18 leads, which gets it in the range of the Emotiv gear and would make it commercially viable.

I got to play on Jud's Muse the evening after the first day of aboug 6.5 wired EEG hours, and found it to not be as interesting to play with. It responded better to simple relaxation more than it did to present-centered attention, though there were seemingly some correlates.

Regardless, I am excited by their work and really look forward to the commercial product.

What is most interesting is that, from my point of view, you can now study meditation and prove stable, controlled concentration and advanced attention regulation, as, if you don't have that, the EEG signal looks like you would figure, and if you do, it really forms nice, step-like plateaus in predictable ways as concentration deepens and attention brightens.

That's the leap that we had all been waiting for, and it is finally here. Does it need more testing, more subjects, more study, and more refinement? Yep. Still, the bridge has been crossed, at least in my opinion, and there is lots to build on the other side beyond that.

That is incredibly amazing! I am so excited to hear that. This might be the most ground-breaking research to come along for a long time.

Is there a similar dose-response with the nanas? Does the distinction between concentration and insight show up anywhere?
How do the PL jhanas or NS register in terms of the tracking state shifts? How many units are they?
This would be a great biofeedback device - just set it up so that higher tones correspond to higher readings and then people could just try to make the tone higher. Do you think something like that would help people get into jhana more easily?
What would happen if you tried to get the thing to hold at 1.5 units? Could you force yourself into some intermediate jhana state? What about going past 8 units?

Do you have information about what format the data is currently in?

The file format is .txt files, basically: number, timestamp, raw voltage output from the leads in order, which I believe is sampled at 24 bits, with the sampling rate being 2048 Hz, with data being space delimited. There may also be occasional markers for interesting events: I don’t know the format of them, but something to watch for in case you occasionally end up with an additional data point for each time-stamped data block.

Here are the first two data blocks:

1 2014-11-06T12:07:41.553380 45321984 40808192 64836608 49683968 14635008 168577024 1155584 82785024 45166336 -8486144 60786944 1650944 45486592 190511104 112796160 68997376 6279680 27996672 -5636864 5032448 90607360 137808896 121138432 99333632 111266048 127710208 125444096 5912832 37298176 33283328 12574464 47739392 40679680 52906752 46229248 41215232 8453120 58174720 64616448 77893632 94948352 93359104 33557248 43726080 30449920 47225600 28685824 8489984 18053888 122906624 119163648 91006208 106582528 111866880 105729792 40958976 19495680 30025728 88103168 27288832 -7599360 22416896 41976064 62757632 48968192 35336704 24036608 -11491840 20310016 21899776 -12287232 63138560 27623168 37995520 -604672 107584512 12756736 72314624 37708032 76281856 204608256 81043712 28093952 11104768 -3763968 34259456 58167040 1256704 -9132032 2870528 80074240 16335104 71037952 195802368 69375488 70245632 31852288 -2317824 15041536 101754368 117413632 278586624 26087424 10262784 47854080 49474816 19964928 -9131520 -27806976 -14036480 11831296 68947200 70008320 17198080 169911296 22613760 -8699648 -5863680 197109504 -9877248 52849664 -13940736 8860928 38072832 -38352896 214210048 3997952 214161920 17538816 -106289152 -76494848 -22310912 -2124193792 6189616
2 2014-11-06T12:07:41.553473 45306624 40795904 64806144 49668608 14612480 168545536 1145600 82769152 45156096 -8479744 60788224 1648128 45478400 190513152 112790528 68981248 6265600 27986176 -5647872 5010432 90590464 137784576 121135616 99331584 111273472 127722240 125450240 5923072 37286144 33275136 12571136 47726848 40664064 52885760 46213376 41199872 8437504 58164736 64623104 77908736 94991616 93352704 33557504 43732736 30434304 47207424 28676352 8487680 18067712 122909440 119158528 90982400 106597120 111885824 105735680 40985344 19474944 29977856 88030720 27238144 -7592704 22400768 41958144 62747136 48958976 35307264 24023808 -11511552 20272128 21862144 -12343808 63078912 27581184 37951744 -625664 107546880 12724992 72268032 37671168 76247552 204564992 81004288 28066560 11063040 -3805952 34227200 58149888 1232640 -9161216 2835712 80043264 16301824 71012864 195772928 69370880 70226432 31821568 -2342144 15011072 101736704 117392128 278577152 26118400 10293760 47855360 49467904 19954688 -9155072 -27837696 -14067200 11800832 68935424 69982464 17169920 169888256 22580480 -8699904 -5856512 197128448 -9871616 52848896 -13941504 8841728 38055168 -38352640 214214400 3995904 214172416 17515264 -106285568 -76484864 -22333184 -2124188672 6189617

The two files I have are each 3.53GB, being the first half and second half of the run temporally.

My data extraction plan, if I had the technical skills to do it, would be to change this to individual lead files, one for each column, essentially turning the columns into individual rows.

Then take those, which are at 2K sampling rate, and extrapolate those up to 44.1K each using a smothing algorithm, basic CD quality, as plenty of programs can deal with that. Then find a way to turn those raw files into something like a .wav file, which should then be able to be converted to .mp3s, one for each row. While I realize that is a lot of conversion between formats, as the region in question is around 5-50Hz and most of that extrapolation and conversion would be creating harmonic distortion at might higher frequencies, we should be fine.

Thus, at this point, there would be one .mp3 file for each original column represting an individual lead and appear as an audio file, and these I could pull into Logic Pro X as individual channels, which then allows me to see all sorts of very cool things about phase convergence, synchrony, and the like, at various bands. There might be an easier way to do this, but that is what I came up with.

Alternatively, if someone knows of good EEG analysis software for a Mac that can read that sort of data and let me see the same sorts of things, I am all ears.

Many thanks to any technical minds that can help with this,

Daniel

Yeah!

Thanks!

Will PM you.

'GNU Octave' is a free data analysis program, mostly compatable with Matlab.  Matlab type programs are amazing for fooling with, visualizing data.  I'm not an expert in the visiuazation world, just an engineer who likes getting data and seeing what I can find out.  Matlab takes a great middle ground between avoiding the details of data managment and having ultimate flexibility in how to handle the date.  Only thing is Matlab/Octave is interpreted, which is a speed problem for huge files.  I'd be happy to experiment

Hi, and happy 2015 for you
The fMRI feedback stuff that Daniel talks about can be found here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12246/pdf
I also found this quite interesting as it talks about phenomenological reports and how they map onto activity in the PPC.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00440/full

Unfortunately most people don't have access to super cooled magnets in their basement so EEG has more promise as practical tool. But to do the the kinds of EGG type stuff that Daniel mentions, you need a big sensor array for the localisation (such as beamforming ), and this is unlikely to become a consumer level possibility with the current tech, as it is difficult and time consuming to attach - consumer level EEG tends to use much fewer sensors but means the localisation of brain activity is poor.

If I were you Daniel, I would try and procure a copy of (non free) Matlab and use the free toolbox EEGLab which a lot of people use - I presume it would be able to import the data you have without problems. I would start off by looking at average power in different frequency bands for different states (e.g. jhanas) and also perhaps look at time/frequency plots for epochs before/after particular events (e.g. fruitions). If there is increased synchronisation/phase locking for populations of neurons it should show up as increases in power in particular frequencies.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00440/full

Very specific! Good read. Thanks

Yeah, I agree with you in this. And as well with SF's point about if "researchers" are taking some teacher's word for it, "here is an adept person" more or less. 

In the three articles linked in your thread, I'm not sure David Vago ever gets out of sort of big historical/citation narrative (including Dogen quoting-- which seems to me to signal Vago is personally biased in his small size "studies"-- rendering them even more "neighbor next store did this" or "food critic as another respondent noted above) and into research technique though so far.  This shallow approach doesn't really serve the field.

There is the Cochrane Review standard for healthcare-related research and how to critique it for the benefit of improving world knowledge and rigorous methods. I noticed today (as a result of participating in your thread) that one can freely take their outline (Cochrane's) of standard online now as well as attend conferences for specific sectors and data. If you should look at it, I hope you or anyone else would let me know what you think of applying more rigor in meditation studies.

Thanks for the thread.



Edit: 2x for grammar

Hi Daniel, sorry to bring this up years late, but were you ever able to process these files into usable data?  I'd like to access the raw / processed data if possible, or help get the data into a format that can be visualized if it's not currently.  I'm working on a mobile app tied to EEG that would hopefully be able to register changes between vipassana Jhanas and whether or not a user had a cessation.  It sounds like your data would be a good starting point.  Thank you!

I can't help directly with this, but the open-source EDFbrowser software might be instrumental, and there's a free txt to edf converter here if need be.

Hey, never did get around to figuring out the best way to do this, though examined a number of options, most of which were PC-based, and I am Mac. I would be happy to discuss playing with the data if you wish. Contact me directly.

Hi Daniel,

Exactly how large are the files? And, do you consider their content sensitive info? Depending on these two, would you be willing to just host the data publicly?

The files are a few gigs. I don’t consider it sensitive information particularly, but interpreting what happened when would likely take some conversations with me. I also have a picture of the readout from Jud’s algorithm from that meditation run/scan, and it helps to make sense of the timing of what occurred. More interesting than Fruitions to me are actually the data on what happens as things change from the second to third to fourth vipassana jhanas, as it is the third vipassana jhana where I don’t think Jud’s algorithm performed as well as it did in other places, and I really want to look at some aspects of synchrony and some specific frequencies to see if any of them correlate with experience during that run.

Probably best to contact me directly to discuss this, as I said.

What you provided is a link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837242/) to an article published in something Frontiers in Psychology which contains an unsubstantiated, unreferenced comments: Where is this actual study showing authorship, purpose, lab and methods for this claim to document "tempory experience of cessation while in the scanner environment"?

"Using traditional methods of fMRI analyses, we were able to investigate the functional correlates of the deeper experiences of cessation in comparison to the more common experience of the passing away of a sensory object."

Katy, are you thinking that somebody else did the fMRI study and authors of this article just analysed data from that study without providing a link?

No, Change A, I am not "thinking that somebody else did the fMRI study and authors of this article just analysed data from that study without providing a link".
 
I am reading this article linked by JC, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837242/, "Can enlightenment be traced to specific neural correlates, cognition, or behavior? No, and (a qualified) Yes", authored by Jake H. Davis and David R. Vago, Edited by: Zoran Josipovic, New York University, USA...

...and I would still like to know: 

Where is this actual study (bold emphsis added below) showing authorship, purpose, lab and methods for this claim to document "tempory experience of cessation while in the scanner environment"?

From the second bold emphasis, it seems to me that the "recent study" was done by Jake H. Davis and David R. Vago.

But there are no references to the actual study in the references. So cant really claim anythkng, we cant verify rtc.

If Jake H. Davis and David R. Vago are the authors of the study, then the article itself is their actual study so it won't be in the references. Although it doesn't include purpose, lab and methods. The lab could be where David works which would be Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

The article itself is not a proper article. Its basically a food critic writing, last week I had a lovely lunch, best I had at some restaurant I wont mention consisting of food that I will not mention either. I give it 4 of 5 tomatos.

I am confused by your question. The research study was an event that occurred in a lab. The study was written about by the researchers in the article I linked to. There is no other study. If you're asking for raw data and more information on the study, the authors would be the ones to contact about that.

I suspect that to actually write an article or take a reserach position on the cessation/fruition issue the researchers will need to observe many more than two instances. Two isn't even close to a statistically valid sample and the cessations are self-reported and cannot yet be validated by observation in the scanner. Plus, to add to the magnitude of the research that needs to take place, it was made clear by Vago and Shinzen Young at the BG2013 conference that the resolution of current fMRI technology is not very small - I believe they said it had a cubic dimension of about ten square millimeters, which is HUGE in anatomical terms for the brain. It was also interesting to hear both of them say that the way they work is to tell stories (reasoning from hypotheses) about their scanning results because they cannot be at all certain that the fMRI scanning measures what they hypothesize it measures. They are making educated guesses, all the time.

Have you read this one yet?

J C: