There is no definition of arousal given anywhere heart rate? gsr? oxygen consumption?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [this was forward to me today and I thought it might be of interest] > > Over the past 20 years there has been widespread interest in the use > of meditation, with the most publicized and popular technique being > TM (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 1963). It appears that many persons use > meditation to reduce physiological arousal, and because of its > purported effects on arousal, meditation is used to treat numerous > disorders which stem from or involve hyperarousal. For example, > meditation has been used to treat hypertension (Benson and Wallace > 1972a; Benson et al. 1973; Blackwell et al. 1975; Michaels et al. > 1976; Simon et al. 1977), asthma (Wilson et al. 1975), inflammation > of the gums (Klemons 1977); drug abuse (Benson and Wallace 1972b; > Shafii et al. 1974), alcohol abuse (Shafii et al. 1975), insomnia > (Miskiman 1977a, b), stuttering (McIntyre et al. 1974), and a variety > of psychiatric disorders (Bloomfield et al. 1975; Glucck and Stroebel > 1975). Furthermore, meditation has been suggested as an alternative > to progressive muscle relaxation training (Boudreau 1972). > > Because of the potential importance of meditation as a technique for > reducing physiological arousal, in 1983 three of my students and I > conducted a simple experiment in which we compared the arousal- > reducing effects of meditation and rest (Holmes et al. 1983). In that > experiment, 10 experienced meditators and 10 other persons who had no > experience with meditation came to my laboratory for individual > appointments on each of 4 days. Each subject was first asked simply > to sit quietly for 5 minutes. Meditators were then asked to meditate > for 20 minutes, whereas non-meditators were asked to rest for 20 > minutes. Following the meditation/relaxation period, all of the > subjects were again asked to simply sit quietly for another 5-minute > period. The results of that experiment were very striking: meditation > and rest resulted in decreases in arousal, but, contrary to what is > generally expected, meditation did not result in greater reductions > in arousal than did the rest. In considering these results it is > important to recognize that the meditators were highly trained > (certified teachers of TM and/or trained in the Sidhi type), and thus > the findings could not be attributed to lack of skill on the part of > the meditators. These findings raised serious questions about the > effects and value of meditation. > > As it turned out, we were not the first investigators to compare > directly the effectiveness of meditation and rest for reducing > physiological arousal. In fact, an initial examination of the > literature revealed a variety of similar experiments, and those > experiments failed to provide any reliable evidence that meditation > was more effective than simply resting for reducing physiological > arousal! I was intrigued by the sharp contrast between the widely > held view of the effects of meditation and the fact that there was a > substantial body of evidence that meditation was not more effective > than rest for reducing physiological arousal. An examination of the > research that was cited by the advocates of meditation quickly > revealed the basis for the widely held but apparently erroneous > conclusion concerning the effects of meditation on arousal. The > findings cited by the proponents of meditation were based on > uncontrolled investigations in which the investigators simply > compared the arousal levels of subjects before they meditated with > their arousal levels during meditation. They found (as did I and my > colleagues) that arousal decreased when the subjects began > meditating. The problem with those investigations is that they did > not include a condition in which nonmeditators simply rested, and > therefore the investigators could not determine whether meditation > was more effective than rest. It is of interest to know that > meditation reduces arousal, but it is of more interest and importance > to know whether meditation is more effective than simple rest for > reducing arousal. Indeed, it is meditation's alleged incremental > value that is its raison d'être. > > Comments and Conclusions > > A number of comments should be made concerning the results of the > experiments in which the levels of arousal of meditating subjects > were compared with the levels of arousal of resting subjects. > Firstly, from Table 5.1 and the accompanying discussion, it is clear > that across experiments there is not a measure of arousal on which > the meditating subjects were consistently found to have reliably > lower arousal than resting subjects. Indeed, the most consistent > finding was that there were not reliable differences between > meditating and resting subjects. Furthermore, there appear to be > about as many instances in which the meditating subjects showed > reliably higher arousal as there are instances in which they showed > reliably lower arousal than their resting counterparts. > > Secondly, it is clear that within any one experiment there is no > consistent evidence across measures that meditating subjects have > reliably lower arousal than resting subjects. In fact, of the 23 > experiments that involved more than one measure of arousal, only two > experiments revealed reliably lower arousal of meditating subjects on > more than one of the measures which were considered (Dhanaraj and > Singh 1977; Elson et al. 1977), and in the latter of those two > experiments the meditating subjects evidenced reliably higher arousal > on one of the other measures obtained. > > Thirdly, it is very important to recognize that the results of one > well-done experiment can outweigh the results of numerous less well- > done experiments, and thus, in addition to simply counting findings, > the quality of the research must be considered. With the present set > of experiments, considering those with more or fewer problems does > not change the patterning of results. Furthermore, as noted in the > preceding paragraph, there is not one experiment that provided > consistent evidence that meditating subjects were less aroused than > resting subjects, and thus the possibility that there is one good > experiment confirming the utility of meditation for reducing arousal > is precluded. Indeed, there does not even appear to be one bad > experiment which offers consistent evidence that meditating reduces > arousal more than resting. > > Fourthly, in this review we are able to draw conclusions only from > published research, and, given the differential difficulty associated > with publishing confirming results vs. null results, the incidence of > null results summarized here is probably an underestimate of those > which have actually been found. > > Fifthly, it should be mentioned that, although in the majority of > experiments the meditating subjects use the TM technique, there are > experiments in which other techniques were used but they did not > yield appreciably different results (Elson et al. 1977; Bahrke and > Morgan 1978). Although it is possible that other meditation > techniques might be more effective for reducing somatic arousal than > those which were reviewed here, at the present time there are no data > to support that speculation. > > Sixth and finally, it is worth noting that, although the > investigations in which the experimental-control procedure was used > did not provide evidence for the arousal-reducing function of > meditation, the investigations in which the own-control procedure was > used did provide such evidence (see earlier citations). As noted > earlier, however, the own-control procedure does not permit the > appropriate comparison. With regard to the difference in conclusions > drawn from investigations which employed the own-control comparison > versus the experimental-control comparison, it might be noted that in > one investigation the data were analyzed both ways and thus a direct > comparison of the two approaches was provided (Holmes et al. 1983). > The own-control comparison indicated that meditation reduced arousal > from the premeditation level, but the experimental-control comparison > indicated that meditation did not reduce arousal more than did > resting. The sharp difference in findings illustrates the importance > of the methodological issue and the distinction between the types of > research should be kept in mind when evaluating the research findings > and the conclusions of authors. > > Overall then, it appears that there is no measure which across > experiments reflects lower arousal in meditating than resting > subjects, and that there is no experiment which across measures > reflects lower arousal in meditating than resting subjects. In view > of those results we must conclude that at the present time there is > no evidence that meditation is more effective for reducing somatic > arousal than is simple rest. > > Meditation and Control of Somatic Arousal in Threatening Situations > > In this section, attention will be focused on the question of whether > subjects who practise meditation are better able to control their > arousal in threatening situations than are subjects who do not > practise meditation. There are three reasons why it is important to > answer that question. Firstly, it is practically important. Indeed, > one of the reasons why meditation is often used as a > psychotherapeutic technique is that it is widely believed that > meditation will facilitate the control of arousal in threatening > situations. > > Summary and Conclusions > > The results of the seven experiments in which meditators were > compared with non-meditators during stress consistently indicated > that the meditators did not show lessened physiological responses to > stress than did non-meditators. In so far as differences were found, > they suggested that meditators might be more responsive to stress > than nonmeditators, and there was no evidence that the hyper- > sensitivity on the part of the meditators was in any way adaptive. > Overall then, these results provide no evidence whatsoever that > training in meditation facilitates the physiological response to > stress. > > Concerns, Comments, and Replies > > Having reviewed the evidence concerning the differential > effectiveness of meditation and rest for reducing physiological > arousal, and having concluded that meditation is not more effective > than rest for reducing physiological arousal, we can now consider the > concerns that have been raised regarding the review and the > conclusion. These concerns were originally raised in response to my > earlier review and conclusion (Holmes 1984), but because there is > little difference between the two reviews and conclusions the > concerns are relevant here. > > 1. Meditation Does Reduce Arousal > > A number of critics expressed concern about my original conclusions > and asserted that meditation does reduce physiological arousal. Yes > meditation does reduce arousal, and I never meant to suggest that it > did not. Indeed, even my own data demonstrate that meditation reduces > arousal (Holmes et al. 1983)! The important point to recognize, > however, is that the question is not whether meditation reduces > arousal, but whether meditation reduces arousal more than does rest. > Meditation reduces arousal, but there is no evidence that meditation > reduces arousal more than does rest. > > 2. Meditation Reduces Arousal More than Rest, But the Effects of > Meditation Have Been Obscured in the Research > > One commentator suggested that `we should also consider other > important psychophysiological phenomena that may complicate or > obscure the effect of meditation such as autonomic response > specificity and directional fractionation'. The argument the > commentator made was that although the data do not show any > differences between the effects of meditation and rest, the effects > of meditation may be obscured or reduced by processes that are not > influencing the effects of rest. Unfortunately, the commentator: (a) > did not offer any suggestions as to how such processes might obscure > the effects of meditation, (b) did not indicate why those processes > would not also influence the effects of rest, (c) and did not offer > any data to support his speculation. There is always the possibility > that some time in the future some additional effects will be found > that will lead us to conclude that meditation is more effective than > rest for reducing arousal, but at the present time it does not seem > appropriate to imply that the effects are there but are hidden by > some unspecified process that only affects the responses of > meditators. > > 3. Meditation is Not Adequately Defined > > When the results of an investigation fail to confirm a hypothesis, > one strategy for saving the hypothesis is to assert that the variable > in question (in this case, meditation) was not properly defined. If > that is the case, the variable of interest may not actually have been > studied and thus the results may be irrelevant. This has been > suggested as one explanation for why `meditation' was not found to be > more effective than rest for reducing arousal. > > In my original empirical research (Holmes et al. 1983), I did not > attempt to define meditation conceptually. Instead, I defined > meditation operationally: meditation was what meditators did, and > meditators were persons who were adequately trained in TM. No one had > seriously questioned whether TM was meditation (the authorities > always referred to the practice as meditation), and therefore it > seemed appropriate to define the practice of TM as meditation. > > In my review of the research (Holmes 1984), I did not limit myself to > investigations that were based on TM, but instead considered any > practice that was labeled as `meditation'. It was necessary to > include all forms of `meditation' so as not to limit the findings > artificially. It is always possible that a predetermined conceptual > definition will preclude the consideration of a very effective > technique. Most of the research I reviewed was based on the practice > of TM, but the findings based on TM were not noticeably different > from those based on other techniques, and none of the other > techniques that were defined as `meditation' proved to be more > effective than rest for reducing physiological arousal. It appears > then that the definition of meditation has not limited or biased the > investigation of the process. > > Finally, if what I and others studied was not meditation, then it is > the critics' responsibility to tell us what meditation is and to > demonstrate that `it' (whatever they define meditation to be) is more > effective than rest for reducing arousal. In this case, the burden of > proof is clearly on the critics, and their argument collapses under > that burden. > > 4. We Must Not Ignore The Fact That Meditation Has Been Practised For > Centuries > > A question I have encountered many times since publishing my review > is that meditation has been practised for centuries, and who am I to > question it? For example, one author wrote: > Meditation is an ancient therapeutic technique that has been studied > and practised by many individuals of far-reaching intellect and > insight. It has endured the rise and fall of civilizations, and > predates both science and psychology by many centuries. As scientists > who sometimes do not bother climbing onto the shoulders of our > predecessors, let us carefully examine any conclusions about its > ineffectiveness: (Suler 1985). > > In response to this criticism I must point out three things. Firstly, > the history of therapeutics is riddled with treatments that were used > for many years before adequate research proved them to be useless > (blood letting, for example), and the fact that a treatment was used > for many years is not evidence that it was effective. Secondly, I am > not arguing that meditation is `ineffective', only that it is not > more effective than rest. Thirdly, I must suggest that if `the > individuals of far-reaching intellect and insight' had had the > experimental evidence that we now have, they might have given up the > practice of meditation more readily than some of its current > proponents. > > 5. We Should Not Throw the Psychological Effects Out With The > Physiological Effects > > Numerous persons have cautioned that even if we conclude > (reluctantly) that meditation is not more effective than rest for > reducing physiological arousal, we should not then conclude that > meditation does not have other benefits. For example, one author > wrote: `If it is indeed true that meditation does not affect somatic > activity [more than rest], let us be careful to avoid conclusions > that its effectiveness in other realms must therefore be restricted' > [Suler 1985). > > My review of the evidence concerning the effects of meditation was > limited to its effects on physiological arousal, but the findings > revealed by my review do have important implications for other > realms. That is the case because many of the other effects that are > attributed to meditation by its advocates are predicated upon or > mediated by the reduction of physiological arousal. It is also > important to note that, although those other effects are beyond the > scope of this review, a variety of research has indicated, for > example, that the psychotherapeutic effects of meditation can be > attributed to the placebo effect (Smith 1975, 1976). Indeed, it has > been found that when an `antimeditation' technique (pacing and > focusing on problems) was presented to subjects as `meditation' it > was effective in reducing the subjects' self-reports of anxiety. From > those results it was concluded that `the crucial therapeutic > component of TM is not the TM exercise' (Smith 1976, p. 630). > Unfortunately, a thorough examination of these effects is beyond the > scope of this chapter. > > 6. There May Be Differences Between Persons Who Elect To Learn > Meditation And Those Who Do Not, And Those Differences May Have > Influenced The Results Of The Investigations Of Meditation > > Many of the investigations in which the responses of meditators were > compared with the responses of non-meditators are in fact only quasi- > experiments because subjects were not randomly assigned to the > meditation and rest conditions. Instead, years before the various > investigations were conducted the subjects self-determined whether or > not they would learn to meditate, and that decision determined the > group in which they would serve later. > > Therefore, it is possible that the subjects in the meditation and > rest conditions differed on some factor other than meditation and > that factor may have influenced the results (West 1985). Consistent > with that possibility, there are reports indicating that persons who > elect to learn to meditate are more `neurotic' and `anxious' than the > general population (Williams et al. 1976; Fehr 1977; Rogers and > Livingston 1977). If such differences are pervasive, they could pose > a problem. However, their potential effects have not been > demonstrated, and the true experiments that were reported (those in > which random assignment was used) did not generate results that were > different from the quasi-experiments. > > 7. Resting Is Actually A `Self-Regulation Strategy', And Therefore > It Does Not Provide An Appropriate Control Against Which To Compare > The Effects Of Meditation > > It has been asserted that a condition in which subjects simply rest > is not an appropriate control condition with which to compare the > responses of subjects in a meditation condition (Shapiro 19851. > Instead of being a control procedure, simply resting may be a `self- > regulation strategy' through which one can `access a relaxation > response, similar to what occurs during meditation' (Shapiro 1985, p. > 7). That being the case, it is the critic's position that in > comparing meditating subjects to resting subjects we are not > comparing meditation with a control and finding no difference, but > rather we are comparing two treatments to one another and finding > that they are both effective for reducing arousal. Voila! The sow's > ear has just been turned into a silk purse! > > I disagree with that analysis of the situation, and I think that the > problem can be approached and solved on two levels. On one level, in > the true experimental sense resting does serve as an excellent > control in experiments on meditation because resting involves > everything that meditation does except the act of meditating (the use > of a mantra, etc.). The fact that resting and meditating have the > same physiological effects indicates that `meditation' adds nothing. > > On another level, I agree that resting does reduce physiological > arousal, and that as such it can be an effective means of temporarily > reducing physiological arousal. I think that calling resting a `self- > regulatory strategy' is stretching the usual use of the term a bit, > but, as Humpty Dumpty has pointed out, our words can mean what we > want them to mean (Carroll 1960). Therefore, for now I will accede to > the critic's position and call resting a `self-regulatory strategy'. > The question then arises, are resting and meditation both effective > self-regulatory strategies? I have acknowledged that resting is, and > the answer concerning meditation is both yes and no. Yes, meditation > is an effective strategy if by meditation you mean the whole > treatment package which includes resting. However, the answer is no, > meditation is not an effective strategy if by meditation you mean the > meditation component (mantra, etc.) of the treatment package because > it has been consistently demonstrated that the meditation component > adds nothing to the effects achieved by the other components of the > package (i.e. resting). Indeed, meditation does not even appear to > have a placebo effect for physiological responses. One might argue > that the meditation component cannot be meaningfully removed from the > treatment package and that it is the total package that must be > evaluated, but that argument misses the point. The point is that the > effects of the package do not change regardless of whether the > meditation component is included or not, and therefore the meditation > component is superfluous. I may be convinced to call resting a self- > regulatory strategy (it does reduce arousal), but then I can not be > convinced to call meditation a self-regulatory strategy because the > meditation component of the package clearly does not contribute to > the reduction of arousal. > > Overall Conclusions And Implications > > This revised review of the published experimental research on the > influence of meditation on physiological arousal did not reveal any > consistent evidence that meditating subjects attained lower levels of > physiological arousal than did resting subjects. Furthermore, the > review did not reveal any consistent evidence that subjects who had > meditated had a lessened physiological response to stressful > situations than did subjects who had not meditated. These conclusions > are in sharp contrast to the widely held beliefs about the effects of > meditation. > > The conclusions generated by this review of the experimental research > have implications for the personal and professional use of meditation > as an antidote for high physiological arousal. Clearly, such use is > not justified by the existing research. This is not to say that the > practice of meditation might not have other effects, but any such > potential effects could not be due to the usually assumed effect of > meditation on physiological arousal. Obviously, that limitation > greatly limits the range of potential effects of meditation. > > The review also illustrated the need for careful attention to > methodological issues and problems when considering research in this > area. Indeed, the original conclusion that meditation resulted in a > unique reduction of physiological arousal was undoubtedly based on > the uncritical acceptance of conclusions from `own-control' > comparisons rather than from experimental tests involving appropriate > control conditions. > by David S. Holmes > > If professionals interested in controlling physiological arousal are > to be effective and maintain professional and public credibility, it > is essential that they do not promise more than the data permit. > There can be no doubt that the claims made for meditation have far > exceeded the existing data, and it is time to bring our promises and > practices into line with the evidence. It is also time for the > proponents of meditation to develop the methodological sophistication > that is required for the production, evaluation, and presentation of > research so that readers will not be misled by their reports. For my > part, since completing my research programme on meditation I have > turned my attention to studying the effects of physical (aerobic) > fitness on physiological arousal in stressful and non-stressful > situations. That line of research has produced some exceptionally > strong findings (heart rate response to stress can be reduced by as > much as 29 b.p.m.!). In view of that, I can strongly recommend that > persons who are interested in reducing arousal spend their time > exercising rather than meditating or resting. > Manoj Dash, BHMS,Ph.D To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
