ArticleVisual cognition2024
How Does Mind-Wandering Affect Distractor Suppression?
Article in Visual cognition, 2024. 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.
- Lapses of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Value-driven attentional capture prevents commission errors in real time.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The relationship between trait mindfulness and psychotic-like experiences in a brief AI-generated music listening context: the roles of presence, perceived interactivity, and emotional arousal.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Predicting attentional lapses using response time speed in continuous performance tasks.Frontiers in cognition · 2024Review
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
Abstract
The current study examined whether the suppression of overt attention to a salient distractor requires attentional resources. In a feature-search task, participants searched for a constant shape among different shapes while ignoring a uniquely colored distractor. Trial-by-trial fluctuations in attentional resources were assessed via thought probes that elicited mind-wandering reports and via pre-trial pupil sizes. The results show that initial eye movements to the distractor were suppressed regardless of the availability of attentional resources. However, when mind-wandering, the presence of the distractor prolonged target looking time. Thus, the initial deployment of overt attention in this task does not require attentional resources and can proceed automatically, presumably due to strong selection history. Nonetheless, the distractor might still disrupt later processing stages, an effect exacerbated by mind-wandering. These results also suggest that initial eye movements do not fully reflect the extent of distractor interference during the entire course of visual search.
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.