ArticleBMC psychology2026
Forgetting or blanking? Evaluating the role of a forgot option in a thought sampling method for mind blanking research.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMind blanking (MB) describes a state in which a person reports an absence of thought, sensation, or awareness. Although thought sampling methods (TSMs) are widely used to capture MB during sustained attention tasks, concerns remain about whether individuals’ reports of MB during the task reflect genuine blankness or failures in memory retrieval.
methodsWe investigated whether adding a “Forgot” option, designed to capture metacognitive uncertainty, to TSM probes improved the interpretability of MB assessments. Japanese participants (n = 183) completed a sustained attention to response task (SART) in a within‑subject crossover study with two probe conditions: one with five common categorical options and one with an added sixth Forgot option.
resultsThe Forgot option was selected infrequently, especially in the first session, yet its inclusion clarified introspective reporting without disrupting behavioral performance (hit response time, variability, and d′). State frequencies showed moderate-to-high session‑to‑session stability, indicating reliable individual reporting tendencies. A correlation analysis revealed the expected associations between the participants’ reports of mind-wandering (MW) and questionnaire-based trait MW scores across both conditions. Critically, MB reports correlated with trait MB scores only when the Forgot option was available, suggesting that the additional option reduced misclassification of retrieval‑based uncertainty as MB.
conclusionsIncorporating a Forgot option enhances the construct validity of MB measurement by distinguishing genuine experiential absence from memory‑based uncertainty, while preserving task performance and the stability of state reports. This refinement improves the precision of TSM‑based assessments and offers a practical tool for advancing research on cognitive absence and attention–memory interactions.
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.