ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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
This research investigated whether individual differences in vocabulary knowledge influence mind wandering during first language (L1) and foreign language (L2) reading. In four independent studies involving different L1 and L2 pairings - German and English (Study 1), French and English (Study 2), English and German (Study 3), and German and French (Study 4) - participants completed measures of mind-wandering frequency, perceived reading difficulty, and comprehension. Studies 2-4 additionally assessed the intentionality of mind wandering. Across all studies, participants with lower vocabulary knowledge in their L2 compared to L1 showed higher frequencies of mind wandering during L2 compared to L1 reading. Studies 1 and 2 additionally included participants with comparable L1/L2 vocabulary knowledge and found no significant L1-L2 differences in mind wandering. Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest that the intentionality of mind wandering is sensitive to task demands. When L2 vocabulary knowledge impaired comprehension on the textbase and situation model levels, participants showed increased unintentional but not intentional mind wandering in L2 compared to L1 (Studies 3 and 4). Under these conditions, task demands likely exceeded available executive-control resources, allowing automatic and unintentional task-unrelated thoughts to intrude. In contrast, when L2 vocabulary supported comprehension at least on the textbase level (Studies 1 and 2), metacognitive evaluations became more influential. Specifically, participants showed more intentional but not unintentional mind wandering in L2 compared to L1, and perceived difficulty mediated the relationship between L2 vocabulary knowledge and mind wandering. Here, participants likely disengaged deliberately when the cognitive costs of L2 reading outweighed its perceived benefits.
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.