ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Capturing naturalistic thoughts using a precision experience sampling idiographic approach.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The existing literature on naturalistic thoughts has offered insights into the general patterns of thoughts common across large groups of participants. However, little is known about individual variability in thoughts. One approach to understanding variation within individuals is precision experience sampling, an idiographic approach that involves sampling inner experiences across multiple sessions and/or timepoints. This creates a comprehensive portrayal of an individual's thoughts across time and context, which in turn facilitates person-specific predictions of their thoughts. The current study therefore used precision experience sampling to examine individual variations in naturalistic thoughts as a function of ongoing task. We implemented 7 sessions per participant (n = 7, idiographic group), resulting in 49 datasets. We verified that the descriptives of thoughts and task-modulatory effects of thoughts in this group were comparable to a larger cohort of participants (n = 49, nomothetic group) who each completed one session. Both groups were asked to complete whatever task they wished on the laboratory computer and to occasionally report their current task and numerous thought dimensions. Our results revealed considerable individual differences in the modulatory effects of task on thought dimensions, such that individuals engaged in different types of thoughts under different task contexts, underscoring the importance of considering both individual and contextual factors. They also indicated that patterns observed at the group level did not always accurately represent individual level patterns. Furthermore, applying machine learning algorithms on reports of the task-at-hand reliably detected all thought dimensions, with superior classification performance in the idiographic compared to nomothetic group. Overall, our study demonstrates the idiosyncratic effects of task on naturalistic thoughts and highlights the value of precision experience sampling in improving person-specific predictions of thoughts, which has important methodological and clinical implications.
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.