The brain in flow: A systematic review on the neural basis of the flow state
[author preprint read in full at source; the version of record was not read, so nothing is quoted at page level] Alameda, C., Sanabria, D., & Ciria, L. F. (2022). 'The brain in flow: A systematic review on the neural basis of the flow state.' Cortex, 154, 348-364. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.06.005. 25 studies, 471 participants, across magnetic resonance imaging, near-infrared spectroscopy, electroencephalography and transcranial direct-current stimulation. 'the dynamics of these brain regions during flow state are inconsistent across studies'; 'the current available evidence is sparse and inconclusive, which limits any theoretical debate'; and 'more than half of the studies included in the present review have samples of less than 20 participants'. On why there is no meta-analysis: the heterogeneity, small study count and moderate risk of bias 'drastically ruled out the possibilities of using meta-analytic techniques since its potential results would be meaningless'. They disclose that their own search protocol was not preregistered. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT NO PHYSIOLOGICAL MARKER EXISTS, because none of these reviews says it.
[author preprint read in full at source; the version of record was not read, so nothing is quoted at page level] Alameda, C., Sanabria, D., & Ciria, L. F. (2022). 'The brain in flow: A systematic review on the neural basis of the flow state.' Cortex, 154, 348-364. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.06.005. 25 studies, 471 participants, across magnetic resonance imaging, near-infrared spectroscopy, electroencephalography and transcranial direct-current stimulation. 'the dynamics of these brain regions during flow state are inconsistent across studies'; 'the current available evidence is sparse and inconclusive, which limits any theoretical debate'; and 'more than half of the studies included in the present review have samples of less than 20 participants'. On why there is no meta-analysis: the heterogeneity, small study count and moderate risk of bias 'drastically ruled out the possibilities of using meta-analytic techniques since its potential results would be meaningless'. They disclose that their own search protocol was not preregistered. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT NO PHYSIOLOGICAL MARKER EXISTS, because none of these reviews says it.
Written from the author preprint read in full at source; the version of record was not read, so nothing is quoted at page level.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Alameda, C., Sanabria, D., & Ciria, L. F. (2022). The brain in flow: A systematic review on the neural basis of the flow state. Cortex, 154, 348-364.