During the past two decades, mindfulness meditation has gone from being a fringe topic of scientific investigation to being an occasional replacement for psychotherapy, tool of corporate well-being, widely implemented educational practice, and "key to building more resilient soldiers." Yet the mindfulness movement and empirical evidence supporting it have not gone without criticism. Misinformation and poor methodology associated with past studies of mindfulness may lead public consumers to be harmed, misled, and disappointed. Addressing such concerns, the present article discusses the difficulties of defining mindfulness, delineates the proper scope of research into mindfulness practices, and explicates crucial methodological issues for interpreting results from investigations of mindfulness. For doing so, the authors draw on their diverse areas of expertise to review the present state of mindfulness research, comprehensively summarizing what we do and do not know, while providing a prescriptive agenda for contemplative science, with a particular focus on assessment, mindfulness training, possible adverse effects, and intersection with brain imaging. Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation.

The Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and Cambridge Face Perception Test (CFPT) have provided the first theoretically strong clinical tests for prosopagnosia based on novel rather than famous faces. Here, we assess the extent to which norms for these tasks must take into account ageing, sex, and testing country. Data were from Australians aged 18 to 88 years (N = 240 for CFMT; 128 for CFPT) and young adult Israelis (N = 49 for CFMT). Participants were unselected for face recognition ability; most were university educated. The diagnosis cut-off for prosopagnosia (2 SDs poorer than mean) was affected by age, participant-stimulus ethnic match (within Caucasians), and sex for middle-aged and older adults on the CFPT. We also report internal reliability, correlation between face memory and face perception, correlations with intelligence-related measures, correlation with self-report, distribution shape for the CFMT, and prevalence of developmental prosopagnosia.

During recent decades numerous yoga-based practices (YBP) have emerged in the West, with their aims ranging from fitness gains to therapeutic benefits and spiritual development. Yoga is also beginning to spark growing interest within the scientific community, and yoga-based interventions have been associated with measureable changes in physiological parameters, perceived emotional states, and cognitive functioning. YBP typically involve a combination of postures or movement sequences, conscious regulation of the breath, and various techniques to improve attentional focus. However, so far little if any research has attempted to deconstruct the role of these different component parts in order to better understand their respective contribution to the effects of YBP. A clear operational definition of yoga-based therapeutic interventions for scientific purposes, as well as a comprehensive theoretical framework from which testable hypotheses can be formulated, is therefore needed. Here we propose such a framework, and outline the bottom-up neurophysiological and top-down neurocognitive mechanisms hypothesized to be at play in YBP.

Congenital prosopagnosia (CP) is a selective difficulty in recognizing familiar faces that is present from birth. There is mounting evidence for a familial factor in CP, possibly due to a simple autosomal inheritance pattern. However, potential candidate genes remain to be established, and the question whether genetically based CP is a single trait, or a cluster of related subtypes differing in the pattern of impairments to specific components of the face‐processing system, remains unanswered. In addition, since the great majority of so far described cases with CP were adult at the time of investigation, it remains unknown which specific aspects of face processing are impaired in small children with CP. Here we present the first study that specifically addresses these questions by elucidating the specific mechanisms underlying face‐recognition impairments in seven individuals with CP (aged 4–87 years) belonging to four generations of the same family. Our results indicate that genetically based CP is not a single trait but a cluster of related subtypes, since the pattern of impairments to specific components of the face‐processing system varies in individuals belonging to the same family. In addition, we show that the heterogeneity of the cognitive profile in CP with respect to specific aspects of face processing is apparent from early childhood.