Cynthia J. Price
Present in this wiki from its first ingest without a page: the interpersonal-trauma vignette on interoceptive-training-clinical is hers, cited by Farb et al. (2015) to Price 2005/2007. She appears first-hand as co-author of Weng et al. (2021), which is where MABT finally arrives with trial results attached.
Promoted to a page under the load-bearing-figure convention used for rainer-schandry, frederike-petzschner and manos-tsakiris: cited across ingests as the source of a named therapy, now read first-hand.
The position
Her distinctive claim is procedural and easy to under-rate. Most contemplative interventions assume that attending to the body is something practitioners learn by doing — sit, follow the breath, and interoceptive awareness accrues. Price’s premise is that it does not, reliably, and that the constituent skills (identifying a sensation, accessing it deliberately, sustaining attention on it) should be taught explicitly and in sequence, with the evaluative work — what does this sensation mean, what does it call for — treated as part of the training rather than as an afterthought.
If that premise is right it matters for the wiki’s central puzzle. The accuracy null — meditators feel more body-aware but do not score better on heartbeat tasks — is usually explained as the wrong measure. Price’s programme suggests a second possibility: that generic mindfulness may simply not train the thing very hard, and that a protocol designed to do so is a different intervention. Neither reading is tested by anything the wiki holds, because MABT’s own outcome is self-report too.
Conflict of interest, stated plainly
She directs the Center for Mindful Body Awareness, the nonprofit organization for MABT, declared on the source paper. The wiki’s MABT evidence comes entirely through a review section she co-authored about her own therapy. That is the same structure already flagged for bruno-bonaz and VNS on bioelectronic-medicine, and for peter-levine and Somatic Experiencing on somatic-experiencing — with the important difference that MABT, unlike SE, has randomized trials behind it.
Where she sits relative to the trauma tradition
MABT and SE were both developed for trauma populations, both make titrated, safety-first contact with bodily sensation their method, and both position themselves against distraction- and reframing-based approaches. The contrast is evidential rather than theoretical: SE is the better-specified protocol with no trials; MABT is the better-tested with a thinner theory of what goes wrong in the body. See bessel-van-der-kolk for the tradition both belong to.