ArticleMemory & cognition2021
Testing the attention-distractibility trait.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are the correlates of mind wandering consistent across younger and older adults?Psychological research · 2026Article
- Effects of long-term mindfulness meditation training on attentional capacity in professional male fencer athletes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A d factor? Understanding trait distractibility and its relationships with ADHD symptomatology and hyperfocus.PloS one · 2023Article
- Relationships between resting-state EEG functional networks organization and individual differences in mind wandering.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility of Eye Tracking in Assessing Distractibility in Children with Neurological Disorders or ADHD: A Cross-Sectional Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forster and Lavie (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40[1], 251-260, 2014; Psychological Science, 27[2], 203-212, 2016) found that task-irrelevant distraction correlated positively with a measure of mind-wandering and a report of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomology. Based primarily on these results, Forster and Lavie claimed to establish an attention-distractibility trait. Here, I tested whether these associations could be distinguished from associations with working memory capacity and task-relevant distraction (measured with an antisaccade task). With data collected from 226 subjects (ns differ among analyses), the results from the current study suggest that the measures of task-irrelevant distraction and working memory capacity were not (or only very weakly) associated with measures of mind wandering (measured both with a stand-alone questionnaire and in-task thought probes) and ADHD symptomology. Task-relevant interference (i.e., antisaccade accuracy) was associated with mind-wandering reports from in-task thought probes (presented in a separate task), but not the stand-alone mind wandering questionnaire or ADHD symptomology. Additionally, the measure of irrelevant-distraction exhibited low internal consistency suggesting that (as measured) it may not be a suitable individual difference measure. [Preregistration, data, analysis scripts and output are available via the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/bhs24/ ].
Indexed as
Identifiers
33709382What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.