Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322789›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Mind wandering at encoding, but not at retrieval, disrupts one-shot stimulus-control learning.

Peter S Whitehead, Younis Mahmoud, Paul Seli, Tobias Egner

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of thought probes and other encoding interruptions on memory.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Binding Error-Induced Control States.Journal of cognition · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter S WhiteheadCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, LSRC, Box 90999, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. peter.whitehead@duke.edu.
Younis MahmoudCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, LSRC, Box 90999, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Paul SeliDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Tobias EgnerCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, LSRC, Box 90999, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Duke University · US

Funding

Neural Mechanisms of Cognitive Meta-FlexibilityR01MH116967 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI EGNER, TOBIAS · 2019 to 2023
$2.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116967NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116967-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The one-shot pairing of a stimulus with a specific cognitive control process, such as task switching, can bind the two together in memory. The episodic control-binding hypothesis posits that the formation of temporary stimulus-control bindings, which are held in event-files supported by episodic memory, can guide the contextually appropriate application of cognitive control. Across two experiments, we sought to examine the role of task-focused attention in the encoding and implementation of stimulus-control bindings in episodic event-files. In Experiment 1, we obtained self-reports of mind wandering during encoding and implementation of stimulus-control bindings. Results indicated that, whereas mind wandering during the implementation of stimulus-control bindings does not decrease their efficacy, mind wandering during the encoding of these control-state associations interferes with their successful deployment at a later point. In Experiment 2, we complemented these results by using trial-by-trial pupillometry to measure attention, again demonstrating that attention levels at encoding predict the subsequent implementation of stimulus-control bindings better than attention levels at implementation. These results suggest that, although encoding stimulus-control bindings in episodic memory requires active attention and engagement, once encoded, these bindings are automatically deployed to guide behavior when the stimulus recurs. These findings expand our understanding of how cognitive control processes are integrated into episodic event files.

Indexed as

LearningMemory, EpisodicAttentionHumansAttentionCognitive controlEpisodic memoryMind wanderingPupillometry

Identifiers

PMID34322789
PMCPMC8318327
OpenAlexW3183114247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.