​

HAKONE YUBIZEN

Six Science-Informed Mechanisms for Interrupting Automatic Smartphone Behavior

HAKONE is designed to intervene at a specific moment:

The point at which a smartphone cue is about to trigger a familiar action sequence.

Instead of waiting until prolonged scrolling is already underway, HAKONE introduces a short, structured alternative before the learned sequence is completed.

The sequence begins with YUBIZEN: a 60-second period in which the fingertip remains still on the smartphone while a continuous flowing-water sound is played.

The user then moves through a series of alternative actions:

Smartphone cue
↓
60-second fingertip stillness with flowing-water sound
↓
Attention returns to tactile and auditory experience
↓
Illustration Reading on paper
↓
Emotion identification
↓
Verbal reflection or AI-guided dialogue
↓
Deliberate selection of the next action

The scientific rationale for this sequence does not come from one study.

It comes from converging research on:

• habit formation;

• the basal ganglia and corticostriatal learning;

• response inhibition;

• Zen and focused-attention meditation;

• tactile-assisted meditation;

• natural sound;

• competing responses;

• drawing and visuomotor control;

• affect labeling;

• cognitive regulation of craving;

• goal-directed smartphone use; and

• short-term neural and behavioral change.

Each of the following six sections separates three different levels of evidence.

Established Evidence

What published research has demonstrated in related fields.

HAKONE Application

How HAKONE translates that research into a practical digital behavior intervention.

Boundary of Claim

What has not yet been directly established through HAKONE-specific controlled studies.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 1

Temporal Interruption of Habitual Action

Why Fingertip Stillness May Create a Boundary Within an Automatic Smartphone Sequence

The Scientific Proposition

Repeated smartphone actions can become increasingly cue-driven and require progressively less conscious deliberation.

Habit learning involves corticostriatal systems, including the dorsolateral striatum and, in humans, the posterior putamen [1–5].

These systems are not defective when they automate a repeated action. They are efficiently reproducing a learned association between a cue and a response.

A typical sequence may begin with:

• a notification;

• the sight of the smartphone;

• an application icon;

• a moment of boredom;

• anxiety or discomfort;

• fatigue;

• or a habitual time of day.

Once the first movement begins, the remainder of the sequence may unfold rapidly:

See or think about the smartphone
↓
Reach for the device
↓
Open the screen
↓
Begin scrolling
↓
Seek the next cue, item, or reward

The person may have originally intended to check only one message. However, the first movement can retrieve a larger action sequence that has been repeated many times.

Tricomi and colleagues showed that repeated human training across several days could make behavior less sensitive to the current value of its outcome while increasing cue-related activity in the posterior putamen and globus pallidus [4].

This does not mean that three days automatically creates a permanent habit.

It demonstrates that cue–response control and activity in habit-related striatal regions can begin shifting during a relatively short period of repeated training.

Stopping Is a Network Function

When an initiated action must be canceled, the brain does not depend on one isolated “brake center.”

Stop-signal research implicates a coordinated fronto-basal-ganglia network that includes:

• the right inferior frontal cortex;

• the pre-supplementary motor area;

• the subthalamic nucleus;

• the striatum;

• the globus pallidus; and

• motor regions [6–13].

The hyperdirect pathway provides a relatively rapid route from frontal regions to the subthalamic nucleus.

The indirect pathway involves frontal, striatal, and pallidal connections that contribute to the suppression and selection of motor output [7–11].

Studies involving lesions and temporary brain stimulation have also shown that damage to, or disruption of, right frontal regions can impair the ability to stop an initiated response [6][13].

These findings establish the biological plausibility of placing an intentional interruption into an action sequence that is already beginning.

They do not establish that every voluntary pause uses precisely the same neural mechanism as a laboratory stop-signal task.

Why 60 Seconds?

HAKONE does not claim that every urge expires within exactly 60 seconds.

Urges differ in duration and intensity, and some may continue well beyond one minute.

The 60-second period is better understood as a defined behavioral interval, not as the neurological expiration time of an urge.

Relevant behavioral evidence comes from competing-response research.

Twohig and Woods compared competing responses lasting:

• five seconds;

• one minute; and

• three minutes

in people who engaged in nail biting [14].

The one-minute and three-minute conditions produced improvements that were maintained more successfully than the five-second condition.

This was a small study of nail biting, not smartphone use.

It does not prove that holding a finger still for 60 seconds will stop scrolling.

It supports a narrower behavioral principle:

A competing or incompatible response may need to be sustained long enough to interrupt the original sequence, rather than functioning as a momentary gesture.

Habit-reversal interventions have also used competing responses that are introduced when an unwanted behavior or urge begins to emerge [14][15].

Again, smartphone scrolling should not be equated with tic disorders or body-focused repetitive behaviors. The relevance lies in the behavioral structure: detecting the beginning of an action and inserting another response before it is completed.

How HAKONE Applies the Evidence

HAKONE places a 60-second fingertip pause at the entrance to the automatic smartphone sequence.

The user does not continue swiping during this interval.

The habitual finger movement is temporarily replaced by stillness, converting an automatic movement into a deliberate task with:

• a clear beginning;

• a defined duration; and

• a clear end.

The purpose of the pause is not to erase the learned habit.

The purpose is to prevent the sequence from reaching completion without a moment of evaluation.

The pause also prepares the user for the next step: an alternative motor, emotional, and cognitive sequence.

Established Evidence

Habitual cue–response sequences involve corticostriatal systems, including the posterior putamen and other regions of the basal ganglia [1–5].

Initiated responses can be inhibited through coordinated frontal–basal-ganglia pathways [6–13].

Sustained competing responses have behavioral support in habit-reversal research [14][15].

HAKONE Application

HAKONE inserts a 60-second period of fingertip stillness before scrolling continues.

The pause creates a physical and temporal boundary within the learned sequence and prepares the user to move toward a different action.

Boundary of Claim

No published study has yet established that HAKONE’s 60-second fingertip stillness:

• recruits precisely the same pathways identified in stop-signal experiments;

• reliably reduces smartphone use in all users;

• changes basal-ganglia activity;

• strengthens the hyperdirect pathway; or

• eliminates an urge within one minute.

Direct testing with behavioral measures, active-control conditions, EEG, fNIRS, or fMRI is still required.

Website Statement

A deliberate 60-second pause creates a time boundary inside a learned smartphone sequence. Research on habit learning and response inhibition shows that cue-driven actions involve the striatum and that stopping an initiated response involves coordinated frontal–basal-ganglia networks. HAKONE applies these findings by interrupting the hand movement before scrolling continues. This is a literature-grounded application, not yet a direct demonstration of HAKONE-specific neural activity.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 2

Tactile Anchoring and Present-Moment Attention

Why Fingertip Sensation May Help Return Attention From the Screen to the Body

The Scientific Proposition

Focused-attention meditation trains a repeated cognitive operation:

Select an object of attention
↓
Notice when attention has wandered
↓
Disengage from the distraction
↓
Return to the selected object

The object may be:

• the breath;

• posture;

• bodily sensation;

• a sound;

• or another stable sensory experience.

Focused-attention practice is not based on the permanent absence of thought.

Its central operation is the repeated act of noticing distraction and returning attention.

Neuroimaging reviews indicate that focused-attention and mindfulness practices involve interactions among multiple systems, including:

• executive-control networks;

• salience networks;

• default-mode networks;

• anterior cingulate regions;

• prefrontal regions;

• insular regions; and

• sensorimotor areas [16–18][27][28].

There is no single “meditation center” that becomes activated in every technique or every person.

The Fingertip as a Tactile Anchor

HAKONE uses the sensation of a fingertip resting on the smartphone screen as a tactile object of attention.

The user is not instructed to empty the mind.

Instead, the task is to notice:

• the urge to move;

• the physical contact with the screen;

• pressure at the fingertip;

• temperature;

• stillness;

• and the return of attention when it wanders.

The fingertip provides an immediately available, concrete bodily sensation.

For a beginner, this may be easier to follow than an abstract instruction such as:

“Clear your mind.”

A tactile signal gives the user something observable.

The user can tell whether:

• the finger is still touching the screen;

• the finger has begun to move;

• attention has drifted toward another thought;

• or attention has returned to the fingertip.

Directly Relevant Haptics-Assisted Meditation Research

Zheng and colleagues developed a haptics-assisted meditation procedure in which beginners synchronized fingertip pressure with respiration [26].

In an initial study, participants reported less mind-wandering during haptics-assisted meditation than during breath-counting meditation.

Following five days of practice, the experimental group improved on several attention measures. fNIRS measurements also indicated changes in prefrontal and sensorimotor activation and connectivity [26].

This is one of the closest published analogues to YUBIZEN because it combines:

• meditation;

• bodily attention;

• fingertip sensation; and

• physiological measurement.

However, the study differs from HAKONE in several important respects.

It involved:

• both hands rather than one finger;

• active adjustment of pressure;

• synchronization with respiration;

• a longer practice protocol;

• no smartphone cue; and

• a small preliminary sample.

The study therefore does not directly establish the effectiveness of placing one stationary finger on a smartphone for 60 seconds.

It does support the proposition that fingertip sensation can be incorporated into an attention practice and may help some beginners maintain attentional engagement.

Why a Tactile Anchor May Be Useful for Beginners

Meditation instructions can be difficult when they rely entirely on internal observation.

A tactile anchor may reduce some of this ambiguity.

It is:

• physically present;

• immediately measurable by the user;

• available without special equipment;

• possible without a formal seated posture;

• and directly connected to the movement that is being interrupted.

The same screen that normally invites swiping is temporarily reassigned a different function.

For 60 seconds, it becomes the location of:

• non-movement;

• tactile observation; and

• present-moment attention.

This is an important reversal of behavioral meaning.

The smartphone surface remains the same, but the action performed on that surface changes.

How HAKONE Applies the Evidence

The YUBIZEN attentional sequence is:

Notice the urge or beginning hand movement
↓
Keep the fingertip still
↓
Attend to contact, pressure, and temperature
↓
Notice distraction
↓
Return to the fingertip sensation

The user is not required to maintain perfect concentration.

Wandering is not treated as failure.

The relevant practice is:

Notice. Return. Continue.

Established Evidence

Focused-attention meditation repeatedly trains the process of detecting distraction and returning attention [16–18][27][28].

A pilot fNIRS study provides preliminary evidence that respiration-synchronized fingertip pressure can reduce mind-wandering and support attention-related processes in beginners [26].

HAKONE Application

YUBIZEN uses a stationary fingertip as a simple somatosensory anchor during the moment when a smartphone habit is about to begin.

Boundary of Claim

No published study has directly tested:

• one stationary finger on a smartphone screen;

• a 60-second tactile pause;

• fingertip stillness triggered by a smartphone urge;

• or the complete YUBIZEN procedure.

There is also no evidence that YUBIZEN necessarily produces the same effects as breath meditation, traditional Zen, or haptics-assisted respiration training.

A tactile anchor should therefore be described as an attentional support—not as a guaranteed method for producing a specific brain state.

Website Statement

Focused-attention practice is built around noticing distraction and returning to a chosen object. Preliminary haptics-assisted meditation research suggests that fingertip sensation can help beginners reduce mind-wandering and engage attention-related prefrontal and sensorimotor processes. HAKONE translates this principle into a 60-second tactile anchor on the smartphone itself.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 3

Natural Flowing-Water Sound as Auditory Support

Why Continuous Nature Sound May Make Stillness Easier to Maintain

The Scientific Proposition

Smartphone audio often encourages rapid shifts in attention.

Notifications, speech, changing music, short videos, alerts, and sound effects repeatedly signal that another piece of information is available.

YUBIZEN replaces this variable and information-dense sound environment with a continuous flowing-water sound while the finger remains still.

The scientific claim is not that water sound automatically creates Zen or activates a specific inhibitory circuit.

The narrower proposition is:

Natural sound may provide a less demanding sensory context and may support physiological settling, stress recovery, or subjective comfort for some listeners.

Findings From Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the relationship between exposure to natural sounds and physiological or psychological outcomes [29–31].

Reported outcomes include possible changes in:

• heart rate;

• blood pressure;

• respiratory rate;

• stress;

• anxiety;

• annoyance;

• positive affect; and

• subjective comfort.

Fan and Baharum reported statistically significant advantages of natural sounds over quiet conditions for heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate, while not all subjective or physiological measures showed significant differences [29].

Zhu and colleagues reported pooled reductions in anxiety, heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate, but also emphasized substantial heterogeneity and limited evidence for some cognitive-restoration outcomes [30].

Buxton and colleagues synthesized evidence associating natural sounds with lower stress and annoyance and with improvements in health-related outcomes and positive affect [31].

These reviews do not show that every natural sound has the same effect.

Results vary according to:

• the type of sound;

• volume;

• duration;

• study population;

• control condition;

• individual preference;

• and outcome measured.

Experimental Evidence on Stress Recovery

Alvarsson and colleagues compared recovery following psychological stress during exposure to natural sound and environmental noise [32].

Natural sound was associated with faster recovery in measures of sympathetic activation than some noise conditions.

This suggests that the auditory environment can influence how physiological arousal changes after stress.

However, the study does not show that a nature sound will stop a habitual action or produce meditation.

Evidence From a 60-Second Forest-Sound Experiment

Jo and colleagues exposed 29 female university students to high-resolution forest and city sounds for 60 seconds [33].

Compared with the city-sound condition, forest sound was associated with:

• lower heart rate;

• lower indicators of sympathetic activity;

• lower right-prefrontal oxygenated-hemoglobin concentration;

• higher ratings of comfort;

• higher ratings of relaxation; and

• stronger ratings of naturalness.

The lower prefrontal oxygenation observed in this context should not be interpreted as reduced intelligence or weaker executive control.

It may reflect lower task demand or a more relaxed state.

This study is particularly relevant to YUBIZEN because its sound exposure also lasted 60 seconds.

Nevertheless, it tested forest sound rather than HAKONE’s specific flowing-water recording, and it did not involve fingertip stillness, smartphone cues, or meditation.

Water-Specific Evidence

Evidence specifically involving water sounds is more conditional.

Thoma and colleagues found that the stress-related effects of listening to water sounds varied according to participants’ somatic complaints [35].

Annerstedt and colleagues reported that natural sounds presented within a virtual forest environment could support physiological recovery after stress [34].

These studies indicate that water and nature sound may support a restorative sensory environment.

They also show that the response is not universal.

Individual differences, context, expectations, and sound preference may influence the outcome.

How HAKONE Applies the Evidence

The flowing-water sound in YUBIZEN is not presented as entertainment.

It does not provide:

• semantic information;

• a new story;

• a changing social cue;

• a notification;

• or an invitation to search for the next item.

It functions as a continuous auditory background during a fixed 60-second interval.

Its proposed functions are to:

• mark the beginning and duration of the pause;

• reduce the perceived emptiness of waiting;

• replace rapidly changing smartphone audio;

• provide a stable auditory object;

• and support the return of attention when it moves away from the fingertip.

The flowing-water sound is best described as auditory support for stillness—not as proof of a deeper or medically defined Zen state.

Established Evidence

Natural-sound research supports possible benefits for:

• stress recovery;

• heart rate;

• blood pressure;

• respiration;

• anxiety;

• comfort;

• reduced annoyance; and

• positive affect [29–35].

A 60-second forest-sound experiment found measurable physiological and subjective differences compared with city sound [33].

HAKONE Application

YUBIZEN uses continuous flowing-water sound to mark and support the 60-second non-scrolling interval.

Boundary of Claim

Existing research does not establish that flowing-water sound:

• deepens Zen;

• improves response inhibition;

• activates a particular prefrontal or basal-ganglia pathway;

• guarantees relaxation;

• or causes every user to complete the pause.

Effects may differ according to the sound, listener, context, and outcome.

Website Statement

Natural sounds are associated with measurable changes in some autonomic, cardiovascular, respiratory, and emotional outcomes. In one study, only 60 seconds of forest sound produced different physiological and subjective responses from city sound. HAKONE uses flowing-water sound as a stable auditory environment for stillness, while avoiding the claim that sound alone creates Zen or guarantees behavioral control.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 4

Stop, Notice, and Return

Repeated Recruitment of Attention and Control Processes

Zen Is a Practice of Returning—not a Guarantee of an Empty Mind

A central operation in focused-attention meditation is not the permanent absence of distraction.

It is the repeated sequence of:

Noticing that attention has wandered
↓
Disengaging from the distraction
↓
Returning to the selected object

Hasenkamp and colleagues used fMRI to examine fluctuating cognitive states during focused meditation [27].

They identified distinguishable phases associated with:

• mind-wandering;

• awareness of mind-wandering;

• shifting attention; and

• sustained attention.

This suggests that meditation is not one continuous, uniform brain state.

It is a dynamic sequence in which attention repeatedly moves away and returns.

Distributed Neural Networks in Meditation

Reviews and meta-analyses indicate that meditation practices involve distributed systems rather than one isolated center [16–18].

Reported regions include:

• the anterior cingulate cortex;

• prefrontal regions;

• the insula;

• supplementary motor regions;

• the posterior cingulate cortex;

• parietal regions;

• and nodes within executive-control, salience, and default-mode networks.

Different meditation practices produce different activation patterns.

Findings also vary according to:

• experience level;

• technique;

• task;

• control group;

• analysis method;

• and duration of practice [16–18].

It is therefore scientifically inaccurate to state that all meditation simply “activates the prefrontal cortex.”

Evidence From Zen-Specific Studies

Kozasa and colleagues examined experienced meditators and non-meditators before and after a seven-day Zen retreat while participants completed a Stroop attention task [19].

Behavioral performance did not differ significantly between the groups.

However, experienced meditators showed lower task-related activity in regions including:

• the anterior cingulate cortex;

• ventromedial prefrontal cortex;

• caudate;

• putamen;

• pallidum;

• insula; and

• posterior cingulate cortex.

The authors discussed this pattern as possible neural efficiency rather than simply stronger activation or deactivation.

The study does not prove that seven days of Zen created these differences, because experienced meditators already differed from non-meditators before the retreat.

Yu and colleagues studied beginners during a 20-minute Zen meditation session [20].

They reported changes involving:

• anterior prefrontal activity;

• EEG measures;

• mood;

• and measures associated with the serotonergic system.

Cross-sectional Zen research has also reported differences involving gray-matter volume, attentional performance, cortical thickness, and pain sensitivity [21][22].

Because some of these studies compare experienced practitioners with non-practitioners at one time point, they cannot establish that meditation alone caused the observed differences.

Pre-existing differences, lifestyle, personality, and self-selection may contribute.

Meditation and the Striatum

Kjaer and colleagues used PET to examine Yoga Nidra meditation, which is not the same as Zen [23].

They reported altered dopamine-related ligand binding in the ventral striatum during meditation.

This is evidence that a meditative state can be associated with striatal neurochemistry.

It should not be used to claim that:

• YUBIZEN normalizes dopamine;

• Zen always increases dopamine;

• dopamine change is automatically beneficial;

• or YUBIZEN reproduces Yoga Nidra.

Does Meditation Strengthen the Brain’s “Brake”?

A meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials found small-to-moderate effects of mindfulness-based interventions on outcomes including:

• global cognition;

• executive attention;

• working-memory accuracy;

• inhibition accuracy;

• shifting accuracy; and

• sustained attention [24].

Another meta-analysis found small effects involving inhibition and working memory but concluded that evidence for executive-function improvement was not consistently robust across methods and samples [25].

The appropriate conclusion is therefore modest:

Sustained meditation or mindfulness training may support the accuracy of some attention and inhibition processes, but it does not uniformly improve every aspect of executive function and cannot be reduced to a single prefrontal brake.

YUBIZEN is also far shorter than most meditation programs examined in these studies.

How YUBIZEN Applies the Evidence

The YUBIZEN sequence is:

Notice the urge to touch or scroll
↓
Stop the finger
↓
Attend to fingertip sensation and flowing-water sound
↓
Recognize mind-wandering
↓
Return attention
↓
Choose the next action

Each YUBIZEN episode presents a brief task requiring:

• awareness of the emerging action;

• temporary non-completion of the movement;

• attention to present sensory information;

• recognition of distraction;

• attentional return;

• and behavioral choice.

These operations are consistent with functions attributed to frontal, cingulate, salience, sensorimotor, and basal-ganglia networks.

HAKONE has not yet measured those networks directly during YUBIZEN.

YUBIZEN and Traditional Zen Are Not Identical

Traditional Zen practice may include:

• posture;

• breathing;

• sustained sitting;

• long-term training;

• teacher–student relationships;

• philosophical or religious frameworks;

• and a structured practice environment.

YUBIZEN does not reproduce all of these elements.

It is a 60-second digital behavior intervention performed at the point when a smartphone action is beginning.

The shared structural principle is narrower:

Stop. Notice. Return.

YUBIZEN translates that attentional structure into a brief tactile and auditory practice.

It should not be presented as medically reproducing traditional Zazen.

Established Evidence

Zen, focused-attention, and mindfulness research implicates distributed systems involved in:

• attention;

• monitoring;

• salience;

• executive control;

• motor preparation;

• self-reference;

• and striatal processing [16–25][27][28].

Randomized-trial meta-analyses suggest small-to-moderate improvements in some cognitive and inhibitory outcomes [24][25].

HAKONE Application

YUBIZEN repeatedly presents a short stop–notice–return–choose task at the moment a habitual smartphone action is beginning.

Boundary of Claim

It has not been shown that each 60-second use of YUBIZEN:

• activates the prefrontal cortex;

• strengthens the hyperdirect pathway;

• changes dopamine;

• reproduces traditional Zen;

• produces the same meditative state in every user;

• or creates long-term executive-function improvement.

Website Statement

Zen and focused-attention practices train a recurring operation: notice distraction, disengage from it, and return. Neuroimaging links this operation to distributed attention, salience, monitoring, and control networks. YUBIZEN applies the same structural principle at the entrance to a smartphone habit, while remaining distinct from traditional Zen and from clinically validated meditation programs.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 5

Post-Pause Action Replacement

Why HAKONE Designs What Happens After Stopping—not Only the Stop Itself

Stopping Alone Leaves an Empty Space

A pause may interrupt an action without changing what happens next.

When the 60 seconds end, the user may immediately return to scrolling unless another response is available.

HAKONE therefore follows YUBIZEN with a sequence that moves:

• the hand;

• attention;

• emotion;

• and language

away from the original action.

Fingertip pause
↓
Illustration Reading on paper
↓
Emotion selection
↓
Verbal reflection or AI-guided dialogue
↓
Deliberate next action

The system is not built only around the command:

“Do not scroll.”

It provides an alternative answer to the question:

“What do I do instead?”

Competing Responses and Habit-Reversal Evidence

Habit-reversal training teaches a person to:

1. notice an emerging urge or behavior; and

2. perform a competing response that is physically incompatible with the unwanted action.

Competing responses have been studied in body-focused repetitive behaviors and tic disorders [14][15].

Piacentini and colleagues reported that a comprehensive behavioral intervention containing habit-reversal elements improved tic severity in a randomized trial involving 126 children [15].

These studies do not concern smartphones.

Tic disorders and smartphone habits should not be treated as equivalent conditions.

The relevant behavioral principle is narrower:

An alternative action can be introduced at the point when a learned action is about to occur.

In HAKONE, drawing on paper cannot be performed at the same time as scrolling on the smartphone.

It therefore functions as a physically competing motor action.

Illustration Reading as a Different Motor–Cognitive Task

After YUBIZEN, HAKONE asks the user to pick up:

• a pencil;

• pen;

• crayon;

• or another drawing tool

and make lines, marks, shapes, or images on paper.

HAKONE calls this practice Illustration Reading.

The image does not need to be artistic, accurate, or recognizable.

The purpose is not artistic performance.

The purpose is to give the hand a different task.

Ino and colleagues used fMRI during a structured clock-drawing task and reported activity in regions including:

• the posterior parietal cortex;

• premotor regions;

• the pre-supplementary motor area;

• ventral prefrontal regions;

• motor cortex;

• and the cerebellum [36].

Purposeful drawing therefore combines:

• visual processing;

• spatial organization;

• motor planning;

• attention;

• and hand movement.

That study used clock drawing, not free drawing.

It does not prove that free drawing rewrites or erases a scrolling circuit.

The scientifically defensible position is:

Drawing is a physically different and cognitively richer action that cannot be performed simultaneously with scrolling.

The HAKONE phrase—

“The drawing tool receives the impulse, and the paper absorbs what cannot yet be put into words”

—is an experiential metaphor.

It is not a literal neuroscientific claim.

Affect Labeling and Emotional Observation

Automatic smartphone use may occur in connection with:

• boredom;

• anxiety;

• loneliness;

• anger;

• fatigue;

• frustration;

• uncertainty;

• or discomfort.

If the screen is opened before the emotional state is recognized, the connection between emotion and behavior may remain hidden.

HAKONE therefore asks the user to identify the current emotional state.

Putting an emotional experience into words is known as affect labeling.

Lieberman and colleagues found that labeling negative emotional stimuli was associated with:

• greater activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; and

• lower responses in the amygdala and other limbic regions [37].

Burklund and colleagues found that both affect labeling and cognitive reappraisal engaged regulatory prefrontal regions and were associated with lower amygdala activity and reduced subjective distress [38].

These findings support the process of turning an unexamined internal state into an object of observation and language.

They do not establish that:

• selecting one label immediately removes an urge;

• the same response occurs in every person;

• or exactly 16 emotion categories are neurologically optimal.

The 16-category interface is a HAKONE design decision intended to balance detail with usability.

Verbal Reappraisal and Craving Regulation

An urge may initially appear without a clear verbal explanation:

“I just need to look.”

“I will not feel settled until I check.”

“I do not know why, but my hand is already moving.”

HAKONE uses verbal reflection to make the urge more observable.

Kober and colleagues studied cognitive regulation of craving [39].

When participants reconsidered the meaning and longer-term consequences of desired substances and foods, researchers observed:

• increased prefrontal activity;

• reduced activity in the ventral striatum;

• reduced activity in the amygdala;

• reduced activity in the ventral tegmental area; and

• lower reported craving.

This does not show that every verbal question produces the same result.

It supports the broader principle that changing how an urge is mentally represented can alter subjective craving and activity in prefrontal–striatal systems.

The Urge Does Not Need to Disappear

Bowen and Marlatt examined a brief mindfulness-based “urge surfing” instruction among smokers [40].

The immediate intensity of the urge did not decline significantly.

Nevertheless, participants who received the instruction smoked fewer cigarettes during the following period.

This distinction is central to the HAKONE model:

An urge does not have to disappear before behavior changes.

The objective is not necessarily to eliminate the internal experience.

It is to change the relationship between the urge and the action that follows.

Goal-Directed Smartphone Use

Keller and colleagues examined a smartphone intervention designed to support self-efficacious and goal-directed use [41].

Participants in both the theory-based intervention and active digital-detox comparison showed reductions in problematic use and total smartphone time.

The theory-based intervention was not clearly superior to the active comparison.

However, planning and self-efficacy appeared relevant to behavioral change.

This supports a balanced principle:

Changing smartphone behavior may require more than restriction. It may also require planning, confidence, and a clear alternative response.

AI-Guided Reflection

HAKONE may use brief AI-guided dialogue to help the user consider:

• What am I feeling?

• What am I attempting to check?

• Is this action necessary for my current purpose?

• What may happen if I wait?

• What do I want to choose next?

Conversational chatbot research in smoking cessation provides emerging evidence that structured dialogue can deliver coping and behavior-change content [42].

However, this field is still developing.

HAKONE uses AI as a reflective prompt—not as a diagnostic, therapeutic, or medical authority.

No evidence shows that a particular GPT exchange reproduces the neural effects observed in laboratory cognitive-reappraisal tasks.

The AI component should therefore be described as supporting:

• verbalization;

• self-observation;

• planning;

• and reflection.

It should not be described as directly activating or repairing the prefrontal cortex.

Established Evidence

The individual components of HAKONE’s post-pause sequence are supported by related evidence from:

• competing-response interventions [14][15];

• drawing neuroimaging [36];

• affect-labeling fMRI [37][38];

• cognitive regulation of craving [39];

• urge surfing [40];

• goal-directed smartphone interventions [41]; and

• conversational behavior-support research [42].

HAKONE Application

HAKONE places drawing, emotional identification, and verbal reflection immediately after YUBIZEN.

Stopping is therefore followed by a concrete alternative motor–cognitive sequence.

Boundary of Claim

The complete ordered HAKONE sequence has not yet been directly compared with:

• ordinary scrolling;

• restriction alone;

• digital detox;

• meditation alone;

• drawing alone;

• emotional labeling alone;

• or another active intervention.

Evidence for individual components does not equal proof of the integrated product.

Website Statement

HAKONE does not end with “do not scroll.” It replaces the original movement with drawing, turns emotion into an observable label, and converts an urge into language and choice. Each component has a related evidence base, although the complete HAKONE sequence remains an integrated mechanism that must be tested directly.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS 6

The 72-Hour Practice Window

Why Three Days Are Presented as an Initial Learning and Observation Period—not a Cure

Seventy-Two Hours Is Not a Magical Habit Deadline

HAKONE does not claim that a long-standing smartphone habit is:

• cured;

• erased;

• reset;

• or permanently rewired

within three days.

Habit formation and behavior change depend on many factors, including:

• the behavior;

• context;

• reinforcement;

• frequency;

• motivation;

• emotional state;

• environmental cues;

• and individual differences.

HAKONE uses 72 hours as an intensive initial period of observation and repeated practice.

During three days, a person is likely to encounter smartphone cues across different contexts:

• morning routines;

• work or study periods;

• boredom;

• waiting;

• fatigue;

• evening use;

• social situations;

• and emotional discomfort.

Each cue creates another opportunity to practice the alternative sequence.

The 72-hour period is long enough to observe behavior repeatedly, while remaining short enough to enter as a defined experiment rather than an indefinite prohibition.

Direct Evidence From 72-Hour Smartphone Research

Cue-Related fMRI Changes

Schmitgen and colleagues studied 25 young adults before and after 72 hours of smartphone restriction using cue-reactivity fMRI [47].

They reported modulation of neural responses in regions associated with:

• salience;

• motor inhibition;

• attention;

• and reward processing,

including the anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens.

This was a small study.

It did not demonstrate:

• structural brain change;

• recovery from addiction;

• permanent change;

• or the effectiveness of HAKONE.

It demonstrated that measurable neural responses to smartphone-related cues can differ after 72 hours of changed smartphone use.

Resting-State fMRI Changes

Haage and colleagues examined 36 adults with resting-state fMRI before and after 72 hours of smartphone restriction [48].

Participants with and without problematic smartphone use showed different patterns of change in:

• prefrontal regions;

• posterior cingulate regions;

• sensorimotor areas;

• visual areas;

• and other regions.

In the problematic-use group, greater craving was associated with lower intrinsic activity in the posterior cingulate cortex.

These findings indicate state-dependent differences.

They do not demonstrate that restriction produces a universal or beneficial effect in every user.

Subjective Withdrawal-Related Effects

Aarestad and colleagues randomly assigned 127 participants either to relinquish their smartphones for three days or continue normal use [43].

Participants with higher problematic-use scores reported stronger withdrawal-related effects and more negative affect under restriction.

The study measured subjective reports rather than neural activity.

It shows that the first three days can be psychologically meaningful and may be uncomfortable, particularly for individuals with stronger problematic-use tendencies.

This is one reason HAKONE does not define its 72-hour period as forced abstinence.

The system seeks to practice an alternative response while the smartphone remains part of everyday life.

Short-Term Learning Evidence

Tricomi and colleagues demonstrated that several days of repeated instrumental training could alter behavior and increase habit-related posterior-putamen responses [4].

This supports the broader principle that cue–response relationships and related striatal activity can begin changing during a period of several days.

It does not show that an existing smartphone habit can be reversed within the same period.

Dopamine-Related Plasticity Within 72 Hours

Lim and colleagues reported changes in striatal dopamine-receptor binding after 72 hours of sleep deprivation in a small mouse study [49].

They observed:

• lower D1-receptor binding;

• higher D3-receptor binding; and

• no significant change in D2-receptor binding.

This was an extreme animal sleep-deprivation procedure.

It was not a smartphone study.

The observed changes should not be presented as healthy or beneficial.

The study demonstrates only that measurable features of the dopamine system can respond within a 72-hour period under certain experimental conditions.

It does not establish that HAKONE changes human dopamine receptors.

How HAKONE Applies the Evidence

The repeated HAKONE sequence is:

A cue occurs in daily life
↓
YUBIZEN pause
↓
Alternative tactile and motor response
↓
Emotion and urge become observable
↓
The next action is chosen
↓
The sequence is repeated across 72 hours

The HAKONE proposition is deliberately limited.

It is not:

“A new habit is permanently installed in three days.”

It is:

Repeated practice may make “pause first” available as a new behavioral option alongside “open immediately.”

Seventy-two hours is therefore an initial opportunity to:

• observe automatic behavior;

• identify recurring cues;

• repeat the interruption;

• practice an alternative action;

• and collect early behavioral data.

Seventy-two hours is an initial window in which measurable responses may begin to change and a different action sequence can be practiced repeatedly. It is not a cure, reset, or completion point.

Established Evidence

Direct smartphone studies have reported measurable cue-related, resting-state, and subjective changes following 72 hours of restriction [43][47][48].

Short-term learning research shows that cue–response control and habit-related neural activity can begin changing within several days [4].

Animal evidence demonstrates that dopamine-related biological measures can respond within 72 hours under some conditions [49].

HAKONE Application

HAKONE uses 72 hours as a concentrated observation and practice period for repeating the pause-and-choose sequence across real-life contexts.

Boundary of Claim

No study has established that 72 hours of HAKONE:

• forms a new neural habit;

• cures problematic smartphone use;

• permanently changes reward circuitry;

• normalizes dopamine;

• produces the same response in every user;

• or creates effects that persist after the practice period.

Website Statement

Three days are long enough for smartphone-related neural and emotional responses to show measurable change in emerging research, and short-term learning studies show that cue–response patterns can begin shifting within days. HAKONE therefore treats 72 hours as an initial observation and training window—not as a cure, reset, or claim that a new habit is complete.

References for Scientific Basis 1–6

[1] Graybiel, A. M. (2008). Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112851

[2] Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417

[3] Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2010). Human and rodent homologies in action control: Corticostriatal determinants of goal-directed and habitual action. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.131

[4] Tricomi, E., Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). A specific role for posterior dorsolateral striatum in human habit learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29(11), 2225–2232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06796.x

[5] Smith, K. S., & Graybiel, A. M. (2016). The striatum: Where skills and habits meet. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 8(8), a021691. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a021691

[6] Aron, A. R., Fletcher, P. C., Bullmore, E. T., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2003). Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 6(2), 115–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1003

[7] Aron, A. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop-signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(9), 2424–2433. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-05.2006

[8] Aron, A. R., Durston, S., Eagle, D. M., Logan, G. D., Stinear, C. M., & Stuphorn, V. (2007). Converging evidence for a fronto-basal-ganglia network for inhibitory control of action and cognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(44), 11860–11864. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3644-07.2007

[9] Jahfari, S., Waldorp, L., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Scholte, H. S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Forstmann, B. U. (2011). Effective connectivity reveals important roles for both the hyperdirect and indirect fronto-basal-ganglia pathways during response inhibition. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(18), 6891–6899. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5253-10.2011

[10] Nambu, A., Tokuno, H., & Takada, M. (2002). Functional significance of the cortico-subthalamo-pallidal hyperdirect pathway. Neuroscience Research, 43(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-0102(02)00027-5

[11] Rae, C. L., Hughes, L. E., Anderson, M. C., & Rowe, J. B. (2015). The prefrontal cortex achieves inhibitory control by facilitating subcortical motor pathway connectivity. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(2), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3093-13.2015

[12] Wessel, J. R., & Aron, A. R. (2017). On the globality of motor suppression: Unexpected events and their influence on behavior and cognition. Neuron, 93(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.013

[13] Chambers, C. D., Bellgrove, M. A., Stokes, M. G., et al. (2006). Executive brake failure following deactivation of human frontal lobe. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(3), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892906775990606

[14] Twohig, M. P., & Woods, D. W. (2001). Evaluating the duration of the competing response in habit reversal: A parametric analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 517–520. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-517

[15] Piacentini, J., Woods, D. W., Scahill, L., et al. (2010). Behavior therapy for children with Tourette disorder: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 303(19), 1929–1937. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.607

[16] Tang, Y. Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916

[17] Fox, K. C. R., Dixon, M. L., Nijeboer, S., et al. (2016). Functional neuroanatomy of meditation: A review and meta-analysis of 78 functional neuroimaging investigations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.021

[18] Ganesan, S., Beyer, E., Moffat, B., Van Dam, N. T., Lorenzetti, V., & Zalesky, A. (2022). Focused attention meditation in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional functional MRI studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 141, 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104846

[19] Kozasa, E. H., Balardin, J. B., Sato, J. R., et al. (2018). Effects of a 7-day meditation retreat on the brain function of meditators and non-meditators during an attention task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00222

[20] Yu, X., Fumoto, M., Nakatani, Y., et al. (2011). Activation of the anterior prefrontal cortex and serotonergic system is associated with improvements in mood and EEG changes induced by Zen meditation practice in novices. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.004

[21] Pagnoni, G., & Cekic, M. (2007). Age effects on gray matter volume and attentional performance in Zen meditation. Neurobiology of Aging, 28(10), 1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.06.008

[22] Grant, J. A., Courtemanche, J., Duerden, E. G., Duncan, G. H., & Rainville, P. (2010). Cortical thickness and pain sensitivity in Zen meditators. Emotion, 10(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018334

[23] Kjaer, T. W., Bertelsen, C., Piccini, P., Brooks, D., Alving, J., & Lou, H. C. (2002). Increased dopamine tone during meditation-induced change of consciousness. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(2), 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00106-9

[24] Zainal, N. H., & Newman, M. G. (2024). Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: A meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials. Health Psychology Review, 18(2), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2023.2248222

[25] Millett, G., D’Amico, D., Amestoy, M. E., Gryspeerdt, C., & Fiocco, A. J. (2021). Do group-based mindfulness meditation programs enhance executive functioning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Consciousness and Cognition, 95, 103195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103195

[26] Zheng, Y. L., Wang, D. X., Zhang, Y. R., & Tang, Y. Y. (2019). Enhancing attention by synchronizing respiration and fingertip pressure: A pilot study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01209

[27] Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Duncan, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2012). Mind wandering and attention during focused meditation: A fine-grained temporal analysis of fluctuating cognitive states. NeuroImage, 59(1), 750–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.008

[28] Farb, N. A. S., Segal, Z. V., Mayberg, H., et al. (2007). Attending to the present: Mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural modes of self-reference. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(4), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm030

[29] Fan, L., & Baharum, M. R. (2024). The effect of exposure to natural sounds on stress reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Stress, 27(1), 2402519. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2024.2402519

[30] Zhu, R., Yuan, L., Pan, Y., Wang, Y., Xiu, D., & Liu, W. (2024). Effects of natural sound exposure on health recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 921, 171052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171052

[31] Buxton, R. T., Pearson, A. L., Allou, C., Fristrup, K., & Wittemyer, G. (2021). A synthesis of health benefits of natural sounds and their distribution in national parks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(14), e2013097118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013097118

[32] Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036–1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7031036

[33] Jo, H., Song, C., Ikei, H., et al. (2019). Physiological and psychological effects of forest and urban sounds using high-resolution sound sources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152649

[34] Annerstedt, M., Jönsson, P., Wallergård, M., et al. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023

[35] Thoma, M. V., Mewes, R., & Nater, U. M. (2018). Preliminary evidence: The stress-reducing effect of listening to water sounds depends on somatic complaints: A randomized trial. Medicine, 97(8), e9851. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009851

[36] Ino, T., Asada, T., Ito, J., Kimura, T., & Fukuyama, H. (2003). Parieto-frontal networks for clock drawing revealed with fMRI. Neuroscience Research, 45(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-0102(02)00194-3

[37] Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., et al. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

[38] Burklund, L. J., Creswell, J. D., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). The common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00221

[39] Kober, H., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Kross, E. F., et al. (2010). Prefrontal-striatal pathway underlies cognitive regulation of craving. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(33), 14811–14816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007779107

[40] Bowen, S., & Marlatt, A. (2009). Surfing the urge: Brief mindfulness-based intervention for college student smokers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(4), 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017127

[41] Keller, J., Roitzheim, C., Radtke, T., Schenkel, K., & Schwarzer, R. (2021). A mobile intervention for self-efficacious and goal-directed smartphone use in the general population: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(11), e26397. https://doi.org/10.2196/26397

[42] Bricker, J. B., Sullivan, B., Mull, K., Santiago-Torres, M., & Lavista Ferres, J. M. (2024). Conversational chatbot for cigarette smoking cessation: Results from the 11-step user-centered design development process and randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 12, e57318. https://doi.org/10.2196/57318

[43] Aarestad, S. H., Flaa, T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Pallesen, S. (2023). Smartphone addiction and subjective withdrawal effects: A three-day experimental study. SAGE Open, 13(4), 21582440231219538. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231219538

[44] Schmitgen, M. M., Horvath, J., Mundinger, C., et al. (2020). Neural correlates of cue reactivity in individuals with smartphone addiction. Addictive Behaviors, 108, 106422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106422

[45] Gao, L., Zhang, J., Xie, H., Nie, Y., Zhao, Q., & Zhou, Z. (2020). Effect of the mobile phone-related background on inhibitory control of problematic mobile phone use: An event-related potentials study. Addictive Behaviors, 108, 106363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106363

[46] Schmitgen, M. M., et al. (2023). Cognitive domain-independent aberrant frontoparietal network strength in individuals with excessive smartphone use. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 329, 111593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2023.111593

[47] Schmitgen, M. M., Henemann, G. M., Koenig, J., et al. (2025). Effects of smartphone restriction on cue-related neural activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 167, 108610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108610

[48] Haage, S. H., Schmitgen, M. M., Henemann, G. M., et al. (2026). Smartphone restriction modulates intrinsic neural activity in problematic smartphone users: Evidence from resting-state fMRI. Addictive Behaviors, 174, 108575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2025.108575

[49] Lim, M. M., Xu, J., Holtzman, D. M., & Mach, R. H. (2011). Sleep deprivation differentially affects dopamine receptor subtypes in mouse striatum. NeuroReport, 22(10), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32834846a0