ArticleBrain sciences2021
The Neural Markers of Self-Caught and Probe-Caught Mind Wandering: An ERP Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relative Accuracy of Different Methods for Measuring Mind Wandering Subtypes: A Systematic Review.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Neurochemical Correlates of Mind-Wandering and Meta-Awareness.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Task difficulty modulates the effect of mind wandering on phase dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- EEG synchronization signatures for decoding attentional states during continuous force control.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Mindfulness Training Improves Attention: Evidence from Behavioral and Event-related Potential Analyses.Brain topography · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mind-wandering (MW) is a common phenomenon, defined as task-unrelated thoughts. This study is based on event-related potentials (ERPs), using modified sustained attention to response task (modified SART, mSART) to discuss the neural patterns of different types of MW. In the current study, we defined the MW realized by participants as self-caught MW, and the MW measurement acquired by probes as probe-caught MW. The behavioral results showed that the reaction times (RTs) during self-caught MW were greater than those during non-self-caught MW. The ERP results showed that during self-caught MW, the mean amplitudes of N1 decreased significantly, indicating that the participants' attention had deviated from the current task. The increase in the mean amplitudes of P2 during self-caught MW indicated lower vigilance. We also found that the mean amplitudes of N300 reduced during self-caught MW, which indicated that cognitive control or monitoring might be affected by self-caught MW. The average amplitudes of P300 were significantly lower during probe-caught MW than during on-task, indicating the impact on high-level cognitive processing. In addition, the amplitudes of N1, P2, and N300 in anterior regions were greater than those in posterior regions. P300 amplitudes during probe-caught MW in the right hemisphere were greater than those of the left hemisphere. In summary, our research results demonstrated that alertness and cognitive processing decreased during both self-caught MW and probe-caught MW. ERPs were statistically different under the conditions of self-caught MW and probe-caught MW. The current study provided new insights into the relationship between MW and neural markers. It was the first study exploring the ERP correlates between self-caught MW and probe-caught MW based on mSART.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.