John Miedema

    1888 The Neuron Comes Into Focus

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    By the late nineteenth century, many scientists believed the brain formed one continuous network.

    Using Golgi’s staining technique, Santiago Ramón y Cajal carefully examined nervous tissue and concluded that the brain is built from individual neurons separated by tiny gaps. He proposed the neuron doctrine, one of the foundational principles of neuroscience.

    His work transformed our understanding of how information flows through the nervous system.

    Every modern model of neural circuits and brain function builds on Cajal’s insight.

    1873 Seeing Neurons for the First Time

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    Looking through a microscope, the brain once appeared as an indistinct mass of tangled tissue. Scientists could see cells, but not how individual neurons were organized or connected.

    In 1873, Italian physician and scientist Camillo Golgi transformed neuroscience by developing the Black Reaction (la reazione nera), a silver chromate staining technique that randomly stained only a small number of neurons. Because just a few cells were coloured while their neighbours remained transparent, each stained neuron could be seen in its entirety—its cell body, branching dendrites, and long axon. For the first time, researchers could appreciate the extraordinary complexity and diversity of individual neurons.

    One laboratory technique opened an entirely new window into the brain’s architecture, laying the foundation for modern neuroscience.

    Golgi’s method also enabled Santiago Ramón y Cajal to demonstrate that the brain is composed of individual neurons rather than a continuous network, establishing the neuron doctrine that underpins modern neuroscience.

    1870 What Happens When You Stimulate the Brain?

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    For centuries, the surface of the brain appeared uniform. Scientists knew brain injuries could change behaviour, but they had little idea whether different regions served different functions.

    German physicians Gustav Fritsch and Eduard Hitzig applied tiny electrical currents to different locations on the cerebral cortex of dogs. Stimulating one area moved a leg, while stimulating another produced movements of the face, neck, or forelimb.

    Their experiments provided the first clear evidence that the cerebral cortex is functionally organized. Different regions are responsible for different movements.

    This principle underpins modern neurosurgery, transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and brain-computer interfaces.

    1861 The Patient Who Could Only Say ‘Tan’

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    Early nineteenth-century scientists knew that nerves connected the brain and spinal cord to the body, but they did not understand how information travelled. Did the same nerve carry messages in both directions?

    Working independently, Charles Bell and François Magendie showed that the nerve roots entering the back of the spinal cord carry sensory information to the brain, while the roots leaving the front carry motor commands to the muscles.

    The Bell–Magendie law revealed that the nervous system is organized rather than chaotic. Sensation and movement follow distinct pathways, allowing the brain to receive information from the outside world while sending precise instructions back to the body.

    Physicians still rely on this principle to diagnose neurological disorders, and it continues to inform modern neurotechnology, from spinal cord stimulation to brain-computer interfaces.

    1822 One Nerve, Two Jobs? Not Quite

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    Early nineteenth-century scientists knew that nerves connected the brain and spinal cord to the body, but they did not understand how information travelled. Did the same nerve carry messages in both directions?

    Working independently, Charles Bell and François Magendie showed that the nerve roots entering the back of the spinal cord carry sensory information to the brain, while the roots leaving the front carry motor commands to the muscles.

    The Bell–Magendie law revealed that the nervous system is organized rather than chaotic. Sensation and movement follow distinct pathways, allowing the brain to receive information from the outside world while sending precise instructions back to the body.

    Physicians still rely on this principle to diagnose neurological disorders, and it continues to inform modern neurotechnology, from spinal cord stimulation to brain-computer interfaces.

    1800 The Battery That Changed Neuroscience

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    At the end of the eighteenth century, scientists could observe electricity in lightning and static sparks, but they had no reliable way to produce it. Without a steady source of electrical current, experiments on the nervous system were difficult and often impossible.

    Italian physicist Alessandro Volta investigated whether electricity originated in living tissue or from the metals used in experiments. While testing different combinations of metals, he stacked alternating discs of zinc and copper separated by cloth soaked in salt water and created the voltaic pile—the world’s first practical battery.

    For the first time, scientists had a dependable source of electricity that could be used repeatedly in the laboratory. This transformed research not only in physics but also in physiology, allowing investigators to study nerves and muscles with unprecedented precision.

    Modern neurotechnology still depends on the ability to generate controlled electrical currents. From laboratory stimulators to deep brain stimulation and cochlear implants, the lineage can be traced back to Volta’s simple stack of metal discs.

    1780 Discovering the Brain’s Electrical Nature

    Posted on

    A Neurotech History Series

    While dissecting frogs in the 1780s, Italian physician Luigi Galvani noticed something extraordinary. A dead frog’s leg suddenly twitched when a metal instrument touched an exposed nerve. The animal was no longer alive, yet its muscles contracted as if they had received a command from the brain.

    At the time, no one understood how the brain communicated with the body. Many scientists believed nerves carried invisible fluids or “animal spirits.” Galvani wondered whether the twitching revealed something entirely different: that the nervous system generated its own form of electricity. He called it animal electricity.

    Galvani’s interpretation would later be debated, but his experiments transformed science. They shifted the study of the nervous system from speculation toward measurable electrical phenomena and inspired a generation of researchers to investigate how nerves and muscles function.

    Today we know that neurons communicate through tiny electrical signals created by the movement of charged ions across their membranes. Every major neurotechnology—from EEG and deep brain stimulation to transcranial magnetic stimulation and brain-computer interfaces—rests on the same fundamental insight that Galvani’s twitching frog helped uncover: the nervous system is electrical.

    Solve It With Less

    Posted on

    Solve it with less.

    In the age of AI, you could spin up a cloud architecture, orchestrate agents, connect to the latest foundation model, build a RAG pipeline with vector embeddings, wire up GitHub Actions, deploy to Kubernetes, add authentication and analytics, collect stakeholder feedback through a custom web app, and ship weekly feature updates.

    Or you could just use a Word doc.

    The best architecture is the one you don’t have to build.

    Solve it with less.

    A Standardized Method for Counting Distractions in Meditation

    Posted on

    A Practical Method for Improving Focus and Mindfulness

    Introduction

    One of the challenges of meditation is knowing whether we are improving. Some sessions feel calm, others seem filled with distraction. Over weeks or months we hope our attention is becoming steadier, but progress is often difficult to perceive because attention is largely invisible.

    Recent years have seen the emergence of neurofeedback devices that estimate attentional states using physiological signals such as EEG. These technologies are fascinating and continue to improve, but they are also relatively expensive and introduce another layer of technology into meditation.

    This essay presents a simpler approach.

    Rather than attempting to measure attention directly, this method records a specific metacognitive event: the moment a meditator recognizes that attention has wandered. That moment of recognition is central to meditation. Before it, the mind is absorbed in thought. After it, attention can be deliberately returned to the meditation object.

    Throughout this essay, counting distractions refers to counting these recognized distractions. The method does not objectively measure attention itself. Rather, it provides an objective, standardized record of metacognitive events. By applying the same counting protocol from one session to the next, the resulting counts become meaningfully comparable across meditation sessions.

    More importantly, this is not merely a method of measurement. It is also a method of training. Each time a distraction is recognized, the meditator performs the very mental act that meditation seeks to cultivate: awareness of distraction followed by a gentle return of attention. The act of measurement becomes an act of practice.

    Relationship to Research

    This method draws upon several well-established findings in cognitive psychology and contemplative science.

    First, researchers have shown that the human mind naturally wanders. Conscious experience rarely remains on one topic for long; attention regularly shifts away from the present task toward internally generated thoughts and feelings. Mind wandering is therefore not a failure of meditation but a normal feature of human cognition (Smallwood & Schooler, 2015).

    Second, an important distinction exists between mind wandering itself and meta-awareness–the moment we realize that the mind has wandered. Schooler and colleagues argue that the mind is only intermittently aware of engaging in mind wandering, and that this recognition represents a distinct metacognitive process (Schooler et al., 2011). This distinction is central to the counting method proposed here.

    Third, mindfulness training has been associated with reductions in mind wandering and improvements in sustained attention. Mrazek, Smallwood, and Schooler (2012) found that mindfulness and mind wandering are opposing constructs in relation to undistracted attention, and that a brief period of mindful breathing reduced behavioral indicators of mind wandering on a later task.

    Fourth, contemplative science has increasingly examined meditation as a training of awareness of spontaneous thought. Brandmeyer and Delorme (2021) propose a neurocognitive framework in which meditation cultivates awareness of mind wandering and supports attention regulation. Their work is especially relevant because it links meditation, spontaneous thought, and metacognitive awareness.

    The method presented here builds on these findings. It does not attempt to detect mind wandering through physiological measurements such as EEG. Instead, it provides a simple, standardized way for meditators to record moments of meta-awareness during meditation itself. Each click records one such event, creating both a measurement of practice and a form of immediate feedback that helps cultivate the very capacity being measured.

    To my knowledge, the literature has focused on detecting mind wandering through experience sampling, behavioral tasks, or physiological measures. The method proposed here offers a simple, standardized practice for recording naturally occurring moments of meta-awareness during meditation itself.

    The Tally Counter

    The method is simple.

    Hold a tally counter comfortably in one hand throughout the meditation. Whenever you recognize that your attention has genuinely wandered from the meditation object, press the counter once. The click records a single metacognitive event: the conscious recognition that attention has drifted. Then gently return your attention to the meditation object.

    The counter is used only when awareness returns after a distraction. Most of the meditation proceeds without interacting with it. At the end of the session, the total provides a standardized record of recognized distractions.

    The tally counter does not objectively measure attention itself. Rather, it provides an objective, standardized record of moments of meta-awareness. It is this distinction that makes the method both simple and scientifically meaningful.

    Why Counting Improves Meditation

    Meditation develops through repeated cycles of attention, distraction, recognition, and return. The moment of recognition is easy to overlook, yet it is the pivot on which the practice turns. Without recognizing distraction, there can be no intentional return to the meditation object.

    The tally counter reinforces this moment. Every click acknowledges, “I noticed.” The click does not record failure. It records awareness.

    Over time, practitioners often notice that distractions are recognized sooner and attention returns more naturally. Early in practice, the distraction count may even increase as awareness becomes more sensitive. This should be welcomed. The goal is not to suppress thoughts but to cultivate the ability to recognize them without judgment.

    Unlike many measurement tools, the tally counter does more than observe the practice. It actively reinforces the skill it measures.

    Choosing a Counter

    I recommend a simple mechanical tally counter.

    Before using any device, I experimented with counting on my fingers. Beginning with both hands closed, I extended one finger after each recognized distraction. Ten fingers are generally sufficient for a twenty- or thirty-minute meditation. This method works, although I occasionally lost track of which fingers had already been extended. A counter simply performs the same task more reliably.

    Digital tally counters are widely available, but I found them less suitable for meditation. The digital counters I tested entered power-saving mode after periods of inactivity. During meditation I could not tell whether the device was awake, and if it had gone to sleep, the first button press merely woke the device instead of recording the distraction. This introduced an unnecessary interruption into the practice.

    A mechanical counter has none of these limitations. It requires no batteries, never sleeps, fits comfortably in the hand, and registers every press immediately with a quiet, reassuring click. After a few sessions, operating it becomes almost automatic.

    The counter should interfere with the meditation as little as possible. Its purpose is not to become another object of attention, but to provide a reliable, consistent record of recognized distractions.

    A Standardized Counting Method

    To make the tally counter a meaningful measurement tool, use it consistently. The objective is not to count every fleeting mental event but to apply the same criteria during every meditation session.

    1. Allow the meditation to settle. Do not begin counting immediately. Give the first minute or so for the mind to settle into the practice.
    2. Count only genuine distractions. Do not count momentary fluctuations of attention. If your attention retains a good hook to the meditation object, it is not a distraction.
    3. Do not count brief instructional self-talk. A simple reminder such as “return to the breath” or “relax the shoulders” is part of the meditation itself, not a distraction.
    4. Count the moment of recognition. When you recognize that attention has genuinely wandered, click the counter once. The click records the metacognitive event–the conscious recognition of distraction. Then gently return attention to the meditation object.

    When in doubt, do not click. Consistency is more important than attempting to count every possible distraction.

    Keeping a Meditation Log

    A single meditation session reveals little. A meditation log reveals patterns.

    After each session, record:

    DateTimeMinutesInternalExternalDistractionsNote
    2026-06-277:00 am302112Poor sleep; noise outside.
    • Date – The date of the meditation session.
    • Time – The time of day the meditation began.
    • Minutes – The length of the meditation session.
    • Internal – Your internal level of distraction before beginning, rated from 1 (low) to 3 (high).
    • External – The level of external distraction in the meditation environment, rated from 1 (low) to 3 (high).
    • Distractions – The total number of recognized distractions recorded with the tally counter.
    • Note – A brief explanation of the Internal and External ratings, or any other observations that may help interpret the session.

    The purpose of the log is not to judge individual meditation sessions but to observe trends over weeks, months, and years. You may discover that certain times of day produce better concentration, that poor sleep predicts higher distraction counts, or that environmental conditions influence your practice. These observations provide context for the distraction count and help explain changes over time.

    Conclusion

    The strength of this method lies in its simplicity.

    It requires no specialized equipment, no software, and no knowledge of neuroscience. It asks only that the meditator consistently recognize and record one well-defined metacognitive event: the moment attention is seen to have wandered.

    Over time, those simple observations become a record of practice, a source of feedback, and a means of cultivating greater mindfulness.

    What can be measured can often be improved. By measuring moments of awareness, we train awareness itself.

    Learn More

    If you would like to try this method, I recommend a specific mechanical tally counter that I have found reliable for meditation. Details are available on my website.

    I also host online meditation sessions using this counting method. Practicing together helps develop a consistent approach while exploring how metacognitive awareness develops through practice.

    Finally, I invite practitioners to contribute anonymous meditation logs. By collecting standardized data from many meditators, I hope to better understand patterns of attention, distraction, and the development of meditation practice.

    For information about the recommended counter, meditation sessions, and participation in the anonymous logging project, visit johnmiedema.art.

    References

    Brandmeyer, T., & Delorme, A. (2021). Meditation and the wandering mind: A theoretical framework of underlying neurocognitive mechanisms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 39-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917340

    Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12(3), 442-448. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026678

    Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006

    Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 487-518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331