PONE-D-20-34727

The Minimal Phenomenal Experience questionnaire (MPE-92M): Towards a phenomenological profile of “pure awareness”-experiences in meditators

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gamma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I am very sorry it has taken such a long time to review your paper - we have had great difficulty in securing reviewers. The two reviewers are very positive about your paper but have recommended some minor revisions. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jane Elizabeth Aspell, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender ).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Summary of the research and impression

The study aims to explore states of ‘Pure Consciousness’ by conducting a large questionnaire study into the phenomenology of such experiences. The area has deep cultural roots in contemplative traditions which the researchers are keen to acknowledge. Their approach is to cast a wide net and examine the phenomenology of such experiences agnostic to tradition and in recognition of a greater interest from Western secular approaches over recent years. Research to date has been descriptive and focussed on phenomenology. This study takes a psychometric approach informed by the theory of Minimal Phenomenological Experience (MPE). The questionnaire is based on research and contemplative literature and previous pilot studies. There were 92 items which the researchers hoped to cluster into dimensions. The researchers conducted exploratory factor analysis and chose a 12-factor solution providing sufficient factor loading (0.3) and meeting conceptual criteria. Problems with the chosen factor solution are acknowledged at the start of discussion which limit its psychometric contribution. The discussion provides an illuminating theoretical interpretation of the findings in the context of previous work on the MPE project. It establishes the theoretical contribution of this piece in further explaining more fine-grained elements of pure consciousness and their interrelationships while situating discussions in the context of traditional contemplative literature. There are novel lines of investigation suggested that will help further illuminate the concept and phenomenology of Pure Consciousness and the wider MPE endeavours such as the link between ‘Touching world and Self’ and ‘Luminosity’.

The paper is clearly written and is a unique and theoretically compelling contribution to the literature. Shortfalls in model fit from the questionnaire items are a shame and somewhat limit the psychometric contribution of this work. Having said this, the robust attempts are certainly necessary and go some way to teasing out phenomenological distinctions which are well explored in the discussion and will prove fruitful for researchers attempting to narrow down hypotheses and explore experimental / psychometric approaches. Shortfalls are well acknowledged and discussed in detail in the limitations section, including what feel like the most salient points around theory contamination, terminological understanding, ineffability and autobiographical memory recall. The second paper on phenomenological reports is much anticipated and will be a useful companion to the discussion here which builds on the theoretical work of the MPE project. Overall, this is an extremely interesting and necessary piece of work, its scale, ambition and interdisciplinary approach provide a significant contribution to our understanding of these multivarious and compelling experiences.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

I recommend this paper for publication with some minor revisions (a) which may strengthen the paper by making it clearer for a general readership and (b) help tease out some of the limitations to aid future researchers building on this work:

• 117: Minimalist idealization – terminology is not clear to general readership and non-philosophers, perhaps define

• 116 – 125: rationale for this second goal (minimal model explanation for conscious experience) is clearer in MPE paper (ref 10) – worth considering adding note on parsimony of such approach to clarify why this is a theoretical target

• 180: Total usable responses were just 38.7% - the ‘Participants’ section (168) outlines minimum requirements, but doesn’t comment on why? Is there a limitation here around survey length and why there were so many incomplete responses? Consider adding to discussion of response drift (907)

• 210: typo – I think this should say table 6

• 248: does not mention whether control items (42 & 66) indicated reliable responses. This is discussed at 424 – although the authors do not suggest whether there was a criterion to exclude respondents based on responses. i.e. if there was a cut off for differences on control items over some arbitrary number. This is discussed in Limitations (914) and reasons for differences are mentioned with the salient point being that items were not identical. However, it is not acknowledged why no data was excluded on basis of the control items. Presumably, it would have impacted sample size. Consider adding something on this to fully acknowledge the limitation

• 619 -622: consider rewording for clarity: ‘… we can sometimes actively direct introspective attention to the quality of consciousness as such and we can distinguish possible states by the degree of actually ongoing introspective access to this quality.’ Bold part does not read well and likely to cause confusion

• Observation: 585 (factor 1) and 815 (factor 11) point to the overall mix of phenomenological states reported from respondents in this study. There are a mix of elements that pertain to the more traditionally understood experience of Pure Consciousness directly and others that seem to be as an aside or weaved into the target experience surrounding more commonplace meditative experiences such as being aware of time, effort, duration and agency. These suggest a conceptual point which may be in line with the notion of ‘Glimpsing’ whereby states of pure consciousness for some may be sandwiched by more usual phenomenology, or, as you have suggested, refer to a multidimensional space of possible conscious states, a space which may contain different points, regions or trajectories. Ethically it seems relevant to acknowledge something here – practitioners can be perturbed by states they are taught about in some traditions which often feel illusive and an important part of soteriological endeavours. Acknowledging that in a large sample, experienced meditators have varied experiences including these states and other more banal or commonplace states might provide some instructive benefit for teachers and students

Reviewer #2: This is a well-written and informative paper organised around two key questions: a)

What, if anything, can count as the simplest form of conscious experience? ; b) And is it possible to arrive at a minimal model explanation for conscious experience in neurotypical human beings?

In order to address these questions, the paper proposes to focus on “pure awareness”, using a psychometric approach and a philosophical background theory. The Authors present data from the Minimal Phenomenal Experience (MPE) project, an interdisciplinary initiative aiming at a minimal model explanation of conscious experience. In doing so, the Authors take as a case study the experience of meditation. The overall ambition of this project is to determine whether “pure consciousness” exists and what are its phenomenological markers.

I believe the paper can make a good contribution to the current literature, and I recommend accepting the paper after addressing the Moderate revisions listed below:

- A general theoretical question concerns the very definition of the term “pure consciousness” as awareness of itself: “can a conscious system be exclusively aware of awareness itself ?” line 109. It’s not clear here what is an “awareness itself”. Is it a sort of phenomenon dissociated from the experiencing subject, or is it more like a kantian object (in itself?). What are the motivations behind this definition? This is a key question because the entire paper structure, as well as the survey depends on this definition. P 12 line 172

- Connected with the comment above: p 13 line 197: how many participants failed to understand the term “pure awareness” as the Authors define? Did you keep a record of these participants?

- P 13 line 207 – to which contemplative traditions these advanced practitioners belong to? As this influenced the questionnaire structure indirectly.

- P 20 line 340: meditation is a vast program with important differences in traditions. What is the “other” here refers to?

- P 40 line 678 “pure awareness knows itself timelessly” – I am struggling understanding this phrase. Is pure awareness a sort of homunculus that knows itself intrinsically? Is it epistemic or experiential stance?

- P 41 – line 710 NREM acronym stands for …

- P 42 – I would move the paragraph 735 earlier in order to follow the structure: “traditionally X means Y, but here we mean Z”

- One general worry I have is that the sample size is way to heterogenous and undercontrolled to back up a specific claim. Perhaps the next step should divide the sample in (i) different contemplative practices traditions ; (ii) years of practice; (iii) school of practice; (iii) gender ; (iv) socio-economical background ; (v) history of mental distress and potential disorders;

- One last worry concerns the outlining of positive only aspects of meditative practices. Or, it is well documented that these practices that aim at attaining a certain “pure awareness” can lead to negative experiences and even distress (see Lindahl & Britton 2019). The journey toward the “pure awareness” does not see straightforward and the questionnaire should include the “dark” side of the journey as well.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The Minimal Phenomenal Experience questionnaire (MPE-92M): Towards a phenomenological profile of “pure awareness” experiences in meditators

PONE-D-20-34727R1

Dear Dr. Gamma,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Thank you for your patience with the review process. We are sorry it has been such a lengthy wait since submission, but it proved extremely hard to find reviewers.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jane Elizabeth Aspell, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for your detailed responses and ammendments to the paper. Suggestions have been taken on board and changes made that add conceptual clarity, further acknwoledgement of methodological limitations and additional discussion around pure conscious states.

Happy to reccommend this for publication as a very solid and fascinating contribution that should be out there for others to appreciate and learn from.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No