Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40082623›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Extending homeostasis to thought dynamics for a comprehensive explanation of mind-wandering.

Kazushi Shinagawa, Kota Yamada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  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

2 authors.

Kazushi ShinagawaKeio University Global Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan. kazushi_shinagawa@keio.jp.
Kota YamadaInstitute for Quantitative Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 24K16869
6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionHomeostasisThinkingHumansReaction TimeReinforcement, PsychologyReward

Identifiers

PMID40082623
PMCPMC11907069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.