Mind wandering and motor control: off-task thinking disrupts the online adjustment of behavior

Abstract

Mind wandering episodes have been construed as periods of “stimulus-independent” thought, where our minds are decoupled from the external sensory environment. In two experiments, we used behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures to determine whether mind wandering episodes can also be considered as periods of “response-independent” thought, with our minds disengaged from adjusting our behavioral outputs. In the first experiment, participants performed a motor tracking task and were occasionally prompted to report whether their attention was “on-task” or “mind wandering.” We found greater tracking error in periods prior to mind wandering vs. on-task reports. To ascertain whether this finding was due to attenuation in visual perception per se vs. a disruptive effect of mind wandering on performance monitoring, we conducted a second experiment in which participants completed a time-estimation task. They were given feedback on the accuracy of their estimations while we recorded their EEG, and were also occasionally asked to report their attention state. We found that the sensitivity of behavior and the P3 ERP component to feedback signals were significantly reduced just prior to mind wandering vs. on-task attentional reports. Moreover, these effects co-occurred with decreases in the error-related negativity elicited by feedback signals (fERN), a direct measure of behavioral feedback assessment in cortex. Our findings suggest that the functional consequences of mind wandering are not limited to just the processing of incoming stimulation per se, but extend as well to the control and adjustment of behavior.

Visual asymmetry revisited: Mind wandering preferentially disrupts processing in the left visual field

“…The block duration itself was randomly varied between 30 and 90 s in order to (1) minimize predictability of block completion and (2) maximize variability of attentional state at the time of block completion (c.f. Kam et al, 2011Kam et al, , 2012Kam et al, , 2013Smallwood et al, 2008).…”

“…These measures were all taken relative to a À200 to 0 ms pre-stimulus baseline. The ERP waveforms were based on averaging together the EEG epochs for the six LVF and RVF probes separately that were presented in the 12 s preceding each attention report (on-task vs. mind wandering) -a time window we have used previously with ERP data (e.g., Kam et al, 2011Kam et al, , 2012Kam et al, , 2013Smallwood et al, 2008). Our analyses were based on the assumption that the 12 s prior to each report would, on average, reliably capture the given attentional state.…”

Revisiting the association between hypnotisability and blink rate

“…Absorption indicates the proneness to become deeply absorbed in tasks avoiding distraction from them; it is often, although not systematically positively correlated with hypnotisability (Tellegen and Atkinson 1974;Council and Green 2004;Santarcangelo et al 2010) and should be associated with lower BR, as BR is higher in participants with higher cognitive flexibility rather than stability (Tharp and Pickering 2011). In contrast, mind wandering indicates the proneness to escape from absorption in tasks (Kam et al 2012;Kam and Todd 2014). It is associated with lower level of alertness and vigilance (Barbato et al 2007;De Padova et al 2009;Braboszcz and Delorme 2011) and greater flexibility on attentional set-shifting tasks (Tharp and Pickering 2011), which is sustained by lower dopaminergic tone (Colzato et al 2010); thus, on one hand, higher mind wandering should be associated with higher BR, whereas on the other hand, it should negatively correlate with hypnotisability.…”

Mind wandering and selective attention to the external world.

“…To address this question, we performed a second study-one that introduced several minor modifications to our original paradigm (Kam et al, 2011). Specifically, in one version, taskirrelevant visual probes were added to the SART, temporally interspersed with the targets, and in a second version, the probes were auditory tones, or brief "beeps," presented over a speaker.…”