Mindfulness Is More Than Keeping Your Attention on the Breath
You sit down to follow your breathing and find yourself planning tomorrow instead. Noticing that shift is part of the experience, too. Mindfulness involves more than sustained attention: it can include recognising where the mind has gone and seeing a thought as a mental event rather than automatically accepting it as fact.
In a 2015 paper, Antoine Lutz, Amishi Jha, John Dunne, and Clifford Saron proposed a framework for describing these differences. Their aim was to make mindfulness research more precise, rather than squeeze every practice into one definition. Read the paper.
Attention is only one part of the picture
The authors describe three main dimensions.
Object orientation concerns how strongly experience is directed toward something. A practice might emphasize a particular sensation, while another takes a broader approach to what is happening.
Meta-awareness involves awareness of experience itself. Noticing that your attention has drifted is an accessible example.
Dereification is the technical term for experiencing thoughts, feelings, and perceptions as mental processes rather than automatically treating them as accurate representations of reality.
The last idea can be understood without learning the terminology. Imagine thinking that an upcoming conversation will go badly. Recognizing this as a prediction gives you a different relationship to it from treating the outcome as already settled.
That is an illustration of the distinction, not a promise that labeling a thought will make it disappear.
Why two meditation sessions can feel different
The paper also considers the breadth of attention, the vividness of experience, its stability, and the effort needed to sustain a state.
These features help describe differences that a single question such as “Was I focused?” can miss. A session might involve a narrow focus or a wider field of awareness. It might feel effortful even when attention is relatively steady.
The framework does not turn every experience into a score. Its purpose is to help researchers ask more specific questions about what people are practicing and what changes.
A map for research is not proof of treatment
This paper is a conceptual review. It proposes a way to organize experiences and research findings; it does not test a new treatment against a control group.
The authors describe the framework as provisional and identify the need for better measures. It would be a mistake to turn it into a claim that one meditation style cures pain, anxiety, or another condition.
Current NCCIH guidance likewise notes that meditation research varies in quality and that some people experience negative effects. Mindfulness should not be used to postpone needed care. Read NCCIH's guidance on effectiveness and safety.
A more useful way to discuss practice
If you are working with a teacher or clinician, describe what actually happens. Does attention drift? Do you notice it quickly? Does a thought pull you into a long argument with yourself? Does the practice feel distressing?
Those observations say more than “I'm bad at meditation.”
The paper's contribution is a richer vocabulary for that conversation. It allows room for different practices, different experiences, and a closer look at what someone is actually learning.
Describe the difficulty instead of grading yourself
If you work with a teacher or clinician, take one example from a recent practice: when attention wandered, what you noticed and whether the exercise felt useful or distressing. Ask what to adjust. There is no need to make a longer or harder session the automatic response to a difficult one.