Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41714829›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Inferring mind wandering from perceptual decision making.

Cathy Zhang, Wouter Kool

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Cathy ZhangDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. cathyz@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5928-6754
Wouter KoolDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-7044

Funding

United States Department of Defense | United States Navy | Office of Naval Research (ONR) ONR/DoD N00014-23-1-2792
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41714829
PMCPMC13035942

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.