Instructional Framing and Tangible-Device Effects on Mindfulness

Determine how instructional framing and tangible interactions jointly shape mindfulness outcomes, including whether identical tangible devices support different mindfulness processes when presented with focused-attention versus open-monitoring instructions.

Background

The theoretical framework treats practice instructions as a controllable factor that may alter how users cognitively and behaviorally engage with a tangible device. The same sensing and feedback mechanism could therefore be interpreted as an aid for recognizing mind-wandering in focused-attention meditation or as a means of observing negative emotions in open-monitoring meditation.

The paper reports that the mechanisms through which instructional framing and tangible interaction jointly influence mindfulness outcomes remain underexplored. It further identifies an unresolved within-session question concerning how linguistic cues and embodied metaphors affect users’ interpretation of tangible interactions and biofeedback.

References

However, the underlying mechanisms through which instructional framing and tangible interactions jointly shape mindfulness outcomes remain underexplored. For example, an underexplored question concerns how identical devices may produce different mindfulness outcomes under varying instructional framing, both between sessions and within a session.

— Grounding Mindfulness in Embodied Tangibles: A Scoping Review & Theoretical Framework for HCI Design  (2608.19673 - Ratnayake et al., 20 Aug 2026) in Section 5.1, subsection “Research Gaps--Tangible Device-Practice Instruction Interaction Perspective”

Within a session, it remains unclear how linguistic cues (instructions) and embodied metaphors (for example, see ) alter users' interpretation of tangible interactions and biofeedback representations.

— Grounding Mindfulness in Embodied Tangibles: A Scoping Review & Theoretical Framework for HCI Design  (2608.19673 - Ratnayake et al., 20 Aug 2026) in Section 5.1, subsection “Research Gaps--Tangible Device-Practice Interaction Perspective”