## 4 Discussion  
We investigated the ability to gain control over one's brain with the assistance of priming MM techniques right before NFT runs, compared to the no-priming REST tasks. In this single session design, as initially predicted, the behaviours at pre- and post-priming intervention are similar between the EG and CG. Nonetheless, the EG during the EO intervention blocks showed an improved ability to control their brain activity compared to the CG. While for the EC blocks, a downregulation on both groups was evident. As such, in EC condition, we need further analysis to separate intervention feature changes from the possible downregulation reflex occurring in the Pz channel after closing the eyes, as physiologically expected. Alpha activity in the EEG is dominant during an eyes-closed resting condition and is suppressed during visual stimulation [22; 78]. Additionally, the profile of theta power is always lower than alpha (see Figure 4). This result is generally the case in adults during normal wakefulness and, in this case, focus on tasks [90]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Domain** & **Feature** & **HV Frequencies** & **EO EG** & **EO CG** \\  & **(EG/CG)** & **[HV\({}^{p1}\)/LV\({}^{p2}\)]\(p^{3}\)** & **[HV\({}^{p1}\)/LV\({}^{p2}\)]\(p^{3}\)** \\ \hline TG & FFMQ actaware & 13/16 & [0.16/0.79 ***] \({}^{++}\) & [0.35/\(-\)0.08] \\ \hline SG & TMS decentering (Bin) & 18/19 & [0.69 ***/0.27] & [0.07/0.29] \\  & POMS Vigour (Bout) & 13/15 & [0.2/0.76 ***] \({}^{+}\) & [0.22/0.09] \\  & POMS confusion (Bout-Bin) & 12/13 & [0.64 **/0.44 *] & [\(-\)0.23/0.44 *] \({}^{++}\) \\  & POMS fatigue (Bout-Bin) & 18/21 & [0.48 **/0.58 *] & [\(-\)0.06/0.63 *] \({}^{+}\) \\  & POMS tension (Bout\_Bin) & 17/20 & [0.69 ***/0.3] & [0.04/0.38] \\ \hline GSR & GSR scl\_mean & 19/15 & [0.39 */0.74 **] & [0.46 **/ -0.15] \({}^{+}\) \\  & GSR scl\_std & 15/17 & [0.36/0.68 ***] & [0.1/0.22] \\  & GSR scr\_sumResp & 11/10 & [0.4/0.59 ***] & [0.24/0.11] \\ \hline HRV & HRV sdmn & 15/15 & [0.48 */0.56 *] & [0.44 */ -0.12] \({}^{+}\) \\  & HRV rmssd & 14/9 & [0.35/0.69 ***] & [0.23/0.17] \\ \hline HV, high value, LV, low value; All, EG and CG subjects; EO, eyes open, EC, eyes closed; EG, experimental priming group; CG, control no-priming group. HV frequencies (the frequency distribution) represent how frequently each HV value occurred within each EG and CG domain. Total sample = 60; EG = 30; CG = 30; Total HV = EG HV + CG HV; Total LV = 60—Total HV; EG LV = 30—EG HV; CG LV = 30—CG HV. Note for HRV data: Total = 55, EG = 28 and CG = 27. Statistically significant-zero progression slopes, \(p1\) and \(p2\), marked with an asterisk (\({}^{+}\)\(p<0.05\), **\(p<0.001\)). Statistically significant differences between the two regression slopes from HV and LV, \(p3\), groups are marked with a cross (\({}^{+}\)\(p<0.05\), **\(p<0.01\), ***\(p<0.001\)). Green represents the significant results. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Table by domain at intervention blocks. Alpha z-transformed power over the baseline (restBin) and NFT tasks for EO condition at intervention blocks (nft1 and nft2). Furthermore, within the EG, the most significant subjects on increasing alpha power during NFT had low values of the awareness trait (at pre-intervention) and reported more signs of built-up tension and less _\"vigour\"_ at the end of the experiment protocol (Bout). As such, subjects with a low capacity to act with awareness benefited more from priming, and the demand for focused attention on internal sensations through guiding audio increased the subject's emotional state of tension and lack of vigour. In contrast, the CG participants didn't express these emotional states, as they were not guided and were only required to state at the screen. Another distinctive EG feature is the higher decentering at Bin, which is connected to the learner's \"optimal\" state.