SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
The Relative Accuracy of Different Methods for Measuring Mind Wandering Subtypes: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Mapping the Relationship Between Core Executive Functions and Mind Wandering in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Review
- Mind-wandering dynamics during individual vs. group mindfulness meditation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMind wandering, the shift of attention from a primary task to unrelated thoughts, is a pervasive cognitive phenomenon with significant implications for cognition, emotion, and behavior. Despite its prevalence, accurately measuring mind wandering and its subtypes remains a challenge due to its subjective and dynamic nature.
methodThis systematic review evaluated the strengths and limitations of methods for measuring mind wandering subtypes, synthesizing findings from 555 studies. Questionnaires and experience sampling methods (ESMs) were most frequently used, offering high ecological validity but limited by self-report biases. Neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI and EEG, provided objective insights into neural correlates, particularly the default mode network (DMN), but were constrained by high costs and low ecological validity. Behavioral tasks revealed task-related attentional lapses but lacked sensitivity to spontaneous mind wandering, while physiological measures and eye-tracking offered unique perspectives but required complex data analysis. FINDING: To address the challenges associated with the limitations of existing methodologies for assessing mind wandering, we propose the Multidimensional Assessment of Mind Wandering (MAMW) framework, which integrates diverse methodologies to provide a comprehensive understanding of mind wandering.
conclusionThe findings highlight the need for standardized measurement tools, greater ecological validity, and longitudinal research to explore the developmental and clinical trajectories of mind wandering. Future studies should prioritize integrating multiple methods to advance both theoretical knowledge and practical applications in clinical, educational, and workplace settings.
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.