What is Stillness-in-Movement?

2012

Finding: This study looked at a rare neurological condition and the specific antibodies found in a small group of 29 patients affected by it; it did not test the Stillness-in-Movement practice or measure any outcome related to it. Because there are no findings here that connect to this technique, there is nothing in it that can tell you whether the practice helps or how it might feel. If you are weighing up this practice, treat this reference as unrelated to its effects and look to studies that actually examine the technique itself.

2023

Finding: This study is a laboratory methods comparison: it tested how two automated video-tracking systems measure the movements of mice across different lighting levels and background contrasts, and found that the readings can differ depending on those setup conditions. It does not study Stillness-in-Movement, human practitioners, or any wellness outcome, so it offers no direct evidence about what this practice does for you. If you are weighing whether to take up the technique, treat this reference as unrelated background rather than support for any specific benefit.

2008

Finding: We don't have usable findings to report from this reference for the Stillness-in-Movement practice. The available source material concerns an unrelated neurological condition rather than this technique, and no measured outcomes, effect sizes, or supported claims about the practice were provided. Until study details specific to this technique are available, this entry should not be used to draw any conclusions about what the practice does.

2009

Finding: This is a single medical case report describing one 30-year-old woman treated for a rare form of brain inflammation, and it does not study Stillness-in-Movement or any wellness practice. Because it examines an unrelated clinical condition in a single patient, it offers no findings about whether this technique helps with stress, focus, or well-being. If you are weighing up this practice, this particular reference cannot inform your decision, and no claims about the technique should rest on it.

2019

Finding: This study describes a research tool for automating animal behavior analysis, not a trial of Stillness-in-Movement in people, so it does not measure any effect of the practice on stress, mood, sleep, or well-being. With no participant outcomes, control group, or effect sizes tied to the technique, there is nothing here a practitioner can act on. If you are weighing whether this practice works for you, this particular paper offers no direct evidence either way.

2007

Finding: This study does not actually examine Stillness-in-Movement or any meditation practice; it investigates limbic encephalitis, a treatable inflammatory brain condition, and the antibodies found in patients' blood and spinal fluid. Because nothing in this paper measures the technique or its effects, and no supporting claims or outcome data accompany it, there is no finding here that can inform your practice. If you are weighing whether to try Stillness-in-Movement, treat this reference as unrelated and look to studies that directly test the technique itself.

2008

Finding: This study looked at a specialised area of medicine, screening large numbers of blood samples for particular immune-system antibodies linked to neurological and cancer conditions, and it does not examine the Stillness-in-Movement practice or any meditation or wellness outcome. Because there is no data here connecting it to this technique, it offers nothing a practitioner can act on regarding stress, focus, or well-being. In short, this reference does not support any claim about the benefits of the practice, and it should not be read as evidence for or against it.

2008

Finding: This reference is a single clinical case report describing one patient's neurological illness, and it does not examine the Stillness-in-Movement practice or measure any outcome related to it. Because there is no data here on the technique itself, no effect on well-being, stress, or any other benefit can be drawn from it for someone considering this practice. If you are weighing whether to take up Stillness-in-Movement, treat this particular study as unrelated background rather than support for any specific claim.

2011

Finding: This reference is a clinical review of movement disorders caused by immune-system activity, a neurological medical topic that sits outside the scope of the Stillness-in-Movement practice. It does not measure the practice itself or report any outcome a practitioner could act on, and no verified claims have been drawn from it. Because there is no relevant finding or effect to summarise here, this study should not be read as evidence for or against the technique.

2009

Finding: This reference does not actually contain any findings about the Stillness-in-Movement practice. The linked source is an unrelated clinical case report from a different field of medicine, and there are no verified claims or measured results connecting it to this technique. Because nothing here speaks to the practice itself, it offers no guidance a reader could act on, and it should not be treated as evidence for or against Stillness-in-Movement.

2012

Finding: This study looked at a group of patients who carried specific immune-system antibodies affecting the nervous system, tracing which biological targets those antibodies attached to and what symptoms the patients experienced. It is a clinical investigation of a neurological condition, not a study of the Stillness-in-Movement practice or of meditation and movement in general. Because it does not measure this technique or its effects, it offers no findings a practitioner can act on, and it should not be read as evidence for or against the practice.

2004

Finding: This reference doesn't include usable findings about Stillness-in-Movement: the source material is a clinical neurology discussion of memory-loss diagnoses rather than a study of the practice, and no measured outcomes, effect sizes, or supported claims are attached to it. Because of that, we can't yet tell you what this technique did or for whom. Treat this entry as a placeholder until a study that actually tests the practice is linked here.

2004

Finding: This study looked at a rare neurological condition, describing the symptoms and immune-system markers of seven patients with a form of autoimmune brain inflammation. It does not examine the Stillness-in-Movement practice, meditation, or any wellness technique, and it reports no outcomes related to stress, well-being, or contemplative training. Because the study population and focus fall entirely outside this practice, it offers no evidence for or against Stillness-in-Movement, and nothing here should be read as a claim about what the practice can do for you.

2015

Finding: This study describes a new computer tool that automatically tracks how animals move from video footage, making it easier to measure small differences in movement without relying on a person watching by hand. It is a methods paper about laboratory measurement technology, not a test of this practice in people, and it reports no outcomes related to stress, wellbeing, or human experience. Because it does not examine the technique or its effects on practitioners, it offers no direct evidence about what Stillness-in-Movement may do for you.

2016

Finding: This paper is a methods study in animal behavioural neuroscience, introducing a new way to measure and interpret behaviour more reliably than the quick, simple tests researchers have long leaned on. It does not test Stillness-in-Movement in people or report any outcomes for a human practice, so there is nothing here about stress, calm, or well-being that you can act on directly. Treat it as a background tool for how behaviour gets measured in the lab, not as evidence for what this technique does for the person practising it.

2013

Finding: This study developed a video-based system to track and measure the movements of zebrafish after they were exposed to alcohol and common psychiatric medications, and it succeeded in detecting clear behavioral shifts tied to those substances. Its focus is animal behavior in a laboratory, not a movement or stillness practice done by people, so it offers no direct evidence about what this technique does for a human practitioner. If you are weighing up Stillness-in-Movement, treat this work as background science on how movement can be measured rather than a reason to expect any particular benefit for yourself.

2006

Finding: This study built a computer system that analyses short video clips of newborn infants and uses motion tracking to automatically flag movements linked to two types of seizures. Its focus is medical monitoring technology for detecting seizures in babies, not a movement or stillness practice for adults. Because it examines automated seizure detection rather than the experience or effects of this technique, it offers no direct evidence about what the practice does for the people who take it up.

2005

Finding: This study is a technical methods paper: it describes a software toolkit for running and precisely controlling laboratory experiments, not a trial of the Stillness-in-Movement practice itself. Because it measured no outcomes in people who use the technique, it offers nothing about how the practice affects stress, focus, or well-being. If you are weighing up whether this approach works, this particular paper won't help you decide, and any benefits of the practice would need to come from studies that actually track practitioners over time.

2022

Finding: This study is a methods paper about using machine-learning tools to automatically track and classify the body movements of freely moving animals, work aimed at helping neuroscience labs study behavior without hand-scoring or costly software. It does not measure this practice, human participants, or any wellness outcome, so it offers no evidence about whether Stillness-in-Movement affects stress, mood, or well-being. If you are weighing this technique for your own routine, treat this reference as unrelated background rather than support for any specific benefit.

2000

Finding: This particular paper is a laboratory methods study about recording and synchronising video and physiological signals in animal-behaviour experiments, and it does not measure any outcome related to Stillness-in-Movement or to the people who practise it. Because it reports no results about the technique, there is nothing here a practitioner can act on. If you are weighing the benefits of this practice, this reference does not add supporting evidence one way or the other.

2023

Finding: This study is a methods paper rather than a test of the practice itself: it develops computer-vision tools that track body posture and movement from ordinary video, letting researchers measure how a person moves precisely and at scale instead of scoring footage by hand. For someone considering Stillness-in-Movement, that means the value here is indirect. The work makes it possible to measure subtle changes in how still or steady a body becomes during practice, rather than showing that the practice improves stress, focus, or well-being. Because no outcomes for practitioners were reported and no effect sizes are available, this paper on its own cannot tell you what to expect from the technique.

2019

Finding: This study does not actually test the Stillness-in-Movement practice or its effects on people; it was a methods study evaluating different ways of recording animal behavior in a research setting. Because it never examined the human technique, measured no wellness outcomes, and is linked to no supported claims on this page, it offers nothing you can rely on when deciding whether to try the practice. Treat it as unrelated background rather than evidence for or against any benefit.

2002

Finding: This study examined a neurological condition involving overactive peripheral nerves, not the practice of Stillness-in-Movement, so it offers no direct evidence about what this technique does or how it might help. Because there are no recorded outcomes, effect sizes, or verified claims tying this paper to the practice, we can't responsibly draw any conclusions from it for someone considering the technique. If you're weighing whether Stillness-in-Movement is right for you, look to the studies on this page that actually measured the practice itself.

1998

Finding: This was a laboratory study in mice, not a test of the practice itself. By adjusting how much of a memory-related brain protein the animals produced, researchers found that this protein plays a real role in how long-term memories form and stick. For someone considering Stillness-in-Movement, the honest takeaway is that this work sits at the level of basic biology in animals and does not measure the technique or its effects in people, so it says nothing directly about what you might experience from the practice.

2015

Finding: This reference does not actually contain findings about Stillness-in-Movement or any wellness practice; the source material examines rare autoimmune conditions of the brain and nervous system, an unrelated area of medical research. Because no measured results, effect sizes, or verified claims about the technique are available here, we can't responsibly report any benefit, direction, or outcome for someone considering this practice. Treat this entry as a placeholder rather than evidence, and look to studies that directly test the technique before drawing conclusions.

2008

Finding: This is a single-patient case report describing a rare neurological condition and its unusual memory symptoms; it does not examine the Stillness-in-Movement practice, or any meditation or movement technique at all. Because it documents one person's specific medical presentation rather than testing what a practice does, it offers nothing a reader can apply to their own routine. Treat it as unrelated background material rather than evidence for or against this technique.

1990

Finding: The specific findings from this study aren't documented in our records, so we can't yet describe what it measured or what results it reported for this practice. Until those details are available, treat this as a placeholder rather than evidence of any particular benefit. If you're considering Stillness-in-Movement, it's worth looking for the fuller study details before drawing conclusions about what it can do.

2020

Finding: This citation doesn't actually examine Stillness-in-Movement or any related practice; it reports on a neurological condition tied to a specific antibody, a topic with no bearing on this technique. Because nothing in the record connects it to the practice, and no measured outcomes or supported claims are on file, there's nothing here a reader can use to judge what Stillness-in-Movement might do for them. We've flagged it as unusable for this page rather than stretch it into a claim it can't support.

2011

Finding: This paper is a small hospital case series that tracked 15 patients at a single sleep-medicine center over several years, all of whom had a rare immune-related neurological condition that disrupted their sleep. It describes the range of sleep problems these patients experienced, but it does not test any meditation or movement practice and includes no comparison group. For someone considering Stillness-in-Movement, this study offers no evidence for or against the technique; it sits outside the practice entirely and should not be read as support for any benefit here.

2015

Finding: This entry doesn't yet include measurable results we can translate into what Stillness-in-Movement may do for you. The source on file doesn't report outcomes, effect sizes, or verified claims tied to this practice, so we can't responsibly describe benefits here without inventing them. Treat this as a placeholder until study details specific to the technique are confirmed, rather than as support for any particular effect.

2019

Finding: This paper describes a laboratory software tool for tracking the movements of larval zebrafish during animal behaviour experiments, and it does not study people, meditation, or the Stillness-in-Movement practice at all. Because it measures fish motion for research purposes rather than any human outcome, it offers no direct evidence about what this technique does for a practitioner. Anyone weighing up the practice should look to studies that actually test it in humans, since this reference cannot speak to its effects on stress, focus, or well-being.

2004

Finding: This reference is a clinical analysis of a rare neurological condition and its diagnosis, not a study of the Stillness-in-Movement practice or any wellness technique. It measures how a specific disease presents and progresses in a group of patients, so it offers nothing that speaks to what this practice does or how it might feel to take it up. No conclusions about the practice can honestly be drawn from it, and it should not be cited here as evidence for any benefit.

2006

Finding: This is a basic-biology study of the zebrafish brain, mapping the chemical messenger systems that shape mood, alertness, and movement and showing how closely they mirror the same systems in mammals, including humans. It does not test Stillness-in-Movement or measure anything about the practice in people, so it offers no direct evidence about what the technique does or how it feels. Read it as background on why animal brains are useful stand-ins for studying human nervous-system chemistry, not as a reason to expect any particular benefit from this practice.

2005

Finding: This paper is a small clinical report following seven patients with a rare inflammatory brain condition affecting memory and mood, and it does not examine Stillness-in-Movement or any wellness practice. Because it studies a specific neurological illness rather than the technique itself, it offers no evidence about what this practice does or whether it helps. If you are weighing up this practice, treat this reference as unrelated background rather than support for any benefit.

2021

Finding: This study looked at something quite different from a movement or meditation practice: it exposed newborn rats and their mothers to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields for several hours a day over four weeks and then examined effects on brain cells in the developing hippocampus. Because it was an animal study focused on electromagnetic exposure rather than on people practising Stillness-in-Movement, it does not tell us anything about whether this technique works or what it does for the body. If you are weighing up this practice, treat this particular study as unrelated background rather than support for any specific benefit.

2012

Finding: This paper describes a software tool built to track the movement and behaviour of laboratory animals from video recordings, measuring things like distance travelled and path taken. It does not test Stillness-in-Movement or study its effects on people, so it offers no direct evidence about what this practice does for a human practitioner. If you are weighing up whether to try the technique, this particular study won't help answer that; it belongs to a different line of research and any benefits to your own practice would need to come from work that actually measures human outcomes.

2016

Finding: This study looks at how yeast cells collect and store clumps of misfolded proteins inside a specialized deposit site, which is basic cell biology rather than research on any movement or meditation practice. It does not measure Stillness-in-Movement, its effects on people, or any wellness outcome, so it offers nothing a practitioner can act on. With no claims tied to it and no results relevant to the technique, this reference should not be used to support statements about what Stillness-in-Movement does.

1995

Finding: This paper is a laboratory methods study in animals: it tested whether video-tracking software could automatically measure how pairs of rats interact, replacing hand-scored observation of their social behaviour. Because the work focuses on validating a research tool in rats rather than testing a practice in people, it does not tell us anything about how Stillness-in-Movement affects human stress, mood, or well-being. Treat it as background on how anxiety-related behaviour gets measured in the lab, not as evidence for what this technique can do for you.

1980

Finding: The details of this particular study, including its participants, methods, and measured outcomes, are not available in this record, so we can't yet summarise what it found for the Stillness-in-Movement practice. Until those specifics are on file, treat this entry as a placeholder rather than as support for any particular benefit. If you're considering the practice, look to the other studies referenced on this page for concrete findings you can act on.

2016

Finding: This is a laboratory study working with mouse nerve cells, not people practising any technique. It found that a natural growth signal in the brain prompts neurons to sprout and branch new connections, and that this branching depends on a specific internal protein: when researchers removed or blocked that protein, the neurons could no longer respond to the growth signal and stopped forming new branches. Because the work was done in cultured cells and genetically altered mice rather than in humans, it tells us about the basic biology of how brain cells build connections, but it does not measure any effect of Stillness-in-Movement or show what this practice does for a person.

2007

Finding: This reference doesn't contain any findings about Stillness-in-Movement that we can responsibly share. The source material is a medical review of a neurological condition and includes no measured outcomes, effect sizes, or claims tied to this practice, so there is nothing here to report about what the technique does or how it might help. Until a study that actually examines this practice is linked, treat this entry as a placeholder rather than evidence for or against the technique.

2012

Finding: This study looked at pain in a rare condition where the immune system attacks part of the nervous system, and it does not examine Stillness-in-Movement or any meditation or movement practice. Because it was not designed to test this technique, it offers no direct evidence about whether the practice helps with stress, pain, or wellbeing. Anyone weighing up this practice should treat this particular paper as unrelated to the technique and look to studies that actually measured it.

2009

Finding: This was a laboratory study in rats, not people, and it looked at what happens in the brain when the vagus nerve, a major pathway linking body and brain, is stimulated over hours or across a month. The researchers found that this stimulation increased the growth of new cells in the hippocampus, a brain region tied to memory and mood. Because the work was done in animals and did not test any movement or breath practice directly, it can only hint at why calming, vagus-engaging routines might support the brain over time; it does not show that this technique produces the same effect in humans.

2018

Finding: This paper describes an open-source software tool for measuring how laboratory mice move during standard behavioral tests, not a trial of Stillness-in-Movement in people. It reports on a method for analyzing animal behavior more quickly and affordably, and it does not test the practice, track any human outcomes, or measure changes in stress, mood, or well-being. Because of that, it offers no direct evidence about what this technique does for someone considering it, and no claims about the practice can be drawn from it.

2012

Finding: This study is laboratory research in mice, examining a protein in the brain's nerve-cell connections and how removing it affected the animals' behaviour; it does not test the Stillness-in-Movement practice or involve human participants. Because it looks at basic brain biology rather than any meditation or movement routine, it offers no direct evidence about what this technique does for people or how to practise it. Anyone weighing this practice should treat this reference as background biology only, not as support for a specific benefit.

2023

Finding: This study looked at ways to automatically detect and sort the natural behaviours of laboratory rodents, not at people practising Stillness-in-Movement. On its own it doesn't measure any effect of this technique on human stress, mood, focus, or well-being, so it can't tell you what to expect from taking up the practice. Read it as background research about how animal behaviour is observed and classified, rather than as evidence for or against the technique itself.

2010

Finding: This study looks at a specialised neurological topic, the immune-system antibodies found in a handful of rare brain and nerve conditions, and it does not examine the Stillness-in-Movement practice, meditation, or any wellness technique at all. Because none of its findings speak to this practice, and no supported claims link it here, it can't tell you anything about whether Stillness-in-Movement will help you. If you're weighing up this technique, treat this reference as unrelated background and look instead to studies that actually tested the practice itself.