Mental Fitness and the Structure of Adaptation

Le résumé fourni par la source

Mental fitness is increasingly invoked as a proactive answer to escalating cognitive strain and burnout, yet the term is often treated as a slogan rather than a measurable construct. To test whether “mental fitness” is becoming scientifically coherent—or remaining a loose rhetorical umbrella—we conducted a citation-weighted systematic literature review of 46 highly cited, conceptually relevant studies spanning psychology, neuroscience, education, health, and performance contexts. We use mental fitness rather than brain fitness to emphasize that the target is not the organ in isolation, but embodied, situated, and connected adaptive functioning—how cognitive organization is expressed through coupled emotional, motivational, and physical constraints in real contexts. Instead of asking whether any single intervention “works,” we ask a more foundational question: what is the structure of the mental-fitness literature itself? Three review hypotheses evaluated (i) whether the field exhibits conceptual convergence, (ii) whether measurement has stabilized or remains fragmented, and (iii) what the joint pattern implies for cumulative science. Results show striking convergence in how mental fitness is framed—with near-universal overlap across four recurring elements: systemic metacognition, repetitive practice, multidomain integration, and adaptive capacity—despite the absence of a single formal definition or unified mechanism. In sharp contrast, the field remains measurement-fragmented, distributing operationalizations across six distinct modes with no dominant standard. This combination—shared conceptual grammar without shared measurement infrastructure—marks an intermediate stage of construct maturity and implies a non-trivial need for a convergent, edumetric, performance-sensitive metric capable of tracking change with practice and performance-in-context. We argue that this emerging profile also clarifies a practical cognitive phenomenon underexplained by dual-process models: a third mode of cognition—System III thinking—in which structured metacognition and practice enable fast, accurate, and adaptable performance under pressure. Together, the findings reposition mental fitness as an emergent, empirically tractable science and define the constraints that any candidate metric or training system must satisfy to move the field forward.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.