ArticleCommunications psychology2026
Inferring mind wandering from perceptual decision making.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are the correlates of mind wandering consistent across younger and older adults?Psychological research · 2026Article
- The two correlations between Academic Stress and Subjective Academic Achievement: the mediating roles of Emotion Regulation and Cognitive Decline, and the moderating role of Mind Wandering.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People need to sustain focused attention to achieve goals. Yet, attention often lapses, as minds wander towards task-unrelated thoughts. The conventional way to study such shifts in attention is through thought probes that explicitly ask if thoughts are task-related. However, probes are rare and interrupt behavior. Other methods to measure mind wandering assume a 50/50 split in time spent on-task vs off-task. We address these issues with a framework to infer mind wandering (MW) using computational modeling. We use a random dot motion task with varying evidence, but with a strong bias inducing a repetitive response requirement. Occasional thought probes were used for validation. When participants (N = 93) reported being off-task, accuracy was higher and reaction time (RT) was lower, suggesting less stimulus processing and more reliance on bias. To classify internal states for individual trials from performance, we fit a Hidden Markov Model with Generalized Linear Models (GLM-HMM) for each state to responses. A two-state GLM-HMM predicted lower RTs on off-task trials, revealed an increase in mind wandering across the task, and aligned with self-reported focus. This shows that temporal variation in attentional states can be measured on a trial-to-trial basis without thought probes, paving the way for future MW research.
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.