Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39435485›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science

Catching Mind Wandering With Pupillometry: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges.

Claudia Pelagatti, Elvio Blini, Manila Vannucci

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Claudia PelagattiDepartment of NEUROFARBA, Section of Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6350-1249
Elvio BliniDepartment of NEUROFARBA, Section of Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7181-5763
Manila VannucciDepartment of NEUROFARBA, Section of Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1782-0526

Funding

European Research Council 832813
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mind-wandering (MW) refers to the shift of attention away from an ongoing task and/or external environment towards mental contents (e.g., memories, prospective thoughts) unrelated to the task. Physiological measures (e.g., pupil size, EEG, and fMRI) have often been acquired as objective markers for MW states, which has greatly helped their study as well as triangulation with other measures. Pupillometry in particular has been used as a covert biomarker of MW because it is reliably modulated by several distinct processes spanning arousal, emotion, and attention, and it signals attentional lapses. Yet, coupling MW and the measurement of pupil size has led to seemingly contrasting results. We argue that, common to the studies reviewed here, one reason is resolving to the measurement of tonic pupil size, which reflects low-frequency, slow changes in one's physiological state, and thus implicitly assumes that MW is a static, long-lasting process. We then additionally focus on three major axes of variability in the reviewed studies: (i) the definition and measurement of MW; (ii) the impact of contextual aspects, such as task demands and individual arousal levels; (iii) the identification and tracking of MW in combination with pupillary measures. We provide an overview of these differences and put forward recommendations for using physiological measures-including, but not limited to, pupil size-in MW research effectively. In conclusion, pupillometry can be a very informative tool for MW research, provided that it is used with the due methodological caution.

Indexed as

AttentionPupilArousalHumansmind‐wanderingpupil dynamicspupillometrytask‐unrelated thoughtstonic pupil size

Identifiers

PMID39435485
PMCPMC11652690

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.