ArticleScientific reports2025
Extending homeostasis to thought dynamics for a comprehensive explanation of mind-wandering.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global neural oscillations underlie performance variability and attentional state fluctuations in humans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Awareness of being: a computational neurophenomenological model of mindfulness, mind-wandering, and meta-attentional control.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Modeling autonomous shifts between focus state and mind-wandering using a predictive-coding-inspired variational recurrent neural network.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Article
- Brain-body interactions associated with the transition from mind wandering to awareness of its occurrence.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our thoughts are inherently dynamic, often wandering far from the current situation. Mind-wandering (MW), which is these thought transitions, is crucial for understanding the nature of human thought. Although previous research has identified various factors influencing MW, a comprehensive framework integrating these findings remains absent. Here, we propose that homeostasis has the potential to explain MW and validate the idea through simulations by replicating previous findings. We employed a homeostatic reinforcement learning model where independent drives for the task and others were assigned, and drive reduction became a reward and trained under sustained attention to the response task. To demonstrate that HRL agents can replicate key findings on MW, we had them perform a task widely used in MW research. We then analyzed their response tendencies and response times for validation. We confirmed that HRL agents behave consistently with the empirical results reported in human experiments, which suggest that MW could be under homeostatic control. Finally, we discuss the behavioral and neurobiological commonality between human thought and animal behavior and the possibility that the same principle, homeostasis, controls these phenomena.
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.