Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35672655›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Self-reported mind wandering reflects executive control and selective attention.

Guy E Hawkins, Matthias Mittner, Birte U Forstmann, Andrew Heathcote

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Momentary Dissociation in the Sensory Cortex: A Neurophysiological Review and its Implications for Maladaptive Daydreaming.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Guy E HawkinsSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. guy.e.hawkins@gmail.com.
Matthias MittnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
Birte U ForstmannIntegrative Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andrew HeathcoteSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Australian Research Council DE170100177Australian Research Council DP160101891Australian Research Council DP180103613Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vidi GrantUniversiteit van Amsterdam Visiting Professor Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mind wandering is ubiquitous in everyday life and has a pervasive and profound impact on task-related performance. A range of psychological processes have been proposed to underlie these performance-related decrements, including failures of executive control, volatile information processing, and shortcomings in selective attention to critical task-relevant stimuli. Despite progress in the development of such theories, existing descriptive analyses have limited capacity to discriminate between the theories. We propose a cognitive-model based analysis that simultaneously explains self-reported mind wandering and task performance. We quantitatively compare six explanations of poor performance in the presence of mind wandering. The competing theories are distinguished by whether there is an impact on executive control and, if so, how executive control acts on information processing, and whether there is an impact on volatility of information processing. Across two experiments using the sustained attention to response task, we find quantitative evidence that mind wandering is associated with two latent factors. Our strongest conclusion is that executive control is impaired: increased mind wandering is associated with reduced ability to inhibit habitual response tendencies. Our nuanced conclusion is that executive control deficits manifest in reduced ability to selectively attend to the information value of rare but task-critical events.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionTask Performance and AnalysisHumansSelf ReportCognitive modelDecision-makingExecutive controlMind wanderingSelective attentionSelf-reportSustained attention

Identifiers

PMID35672655
PMCPMC9722835
OpenAlexW4281621932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.