Propensity to intentional and unintentional mind-wandering differs in arousal and executive vigilance tasks

Abstract

We typically observe a decrement in vigilance with time-on-task, which favors the propensity for mind-wandering, i.e., the shifting of attention from the task at hand to task-unrelated thoughts. Here, we examined participants’ mind-wandering, either intentional or unintentional, while performing vigilance tasks that tap different components of vigilance. Intentional mind-wandering is expected mainly when the arousal component is involved, whereas unintentional mind-wandering is expected mainly in tasks involving the executive component. The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) assessed the arousal component, whereas the Sustained Attention to Response task (SART) assessed the executive component of vigilance. The two types of mind-wandering were probed throughout task execution. The results showed that the overall rate of mind-wandering was higher in the PVT than in the SART. Intentional mind-wandering was higher with the PVT than with the SART, whereas unintentional mind-wandering was higher with the SART than with the PVT. Regarding mind-wandering as a function of vigilance decrement with time-on-task, unintentional mind-wandering in the PVT increased between blocks 1 and 2 and then stabilized, whereas a progressive increase was observed in the SART. Regarding intentional mind-wandering, a progressive increase was only observed in the SART. The differential patterns of intentional and unintentional mind-wandering in both tasks suggest that, intentional mind wandering occurs mainly in arousal tasks in which propensity to mind-wander has little impact on task performance. However, unintentional mind-wandering occurs mainly in executive tasks as a result of a failure of cognitive control, which promotes attentional resources to be diverted toward mind-wandering. These results are discussed in the context of the resource-control model of mind-wandering.

Effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation over right-DLPFC on vigilance tasks depend on the arousal level

“…In addition, alpha oscillations have been thought to exert an overall inhibitory effect on cortical processing, but also contribute to top-down inhibitory control mechanisms affecting task-irrelevant processes (see 9 , for review) that involve the prefrontal regions of the frontoparietal network 61 . Accordingly, alpha oscillations may have avoided participants from being affected by task-irrelevant thoughts that usually lead to mind-wandering states across time-on-task (see 62 ). Note that a mind-wandering state here is interpreted as the opposite of a vigilance state 63 .…”

Spontaneous mind-wandering tendencies linked to cognitive flexibility in young adults

“…Second, it remains unknown whether the current findings, namely that the high MW-S group demonstrated better switching performance despite indicating poorer attentional control and more mind wandering during performance of the switching paradigms, have relevance to other populations (e.g., children, older adults, and clinical populations). Furthermore, like many psychology studies, our participants were primarily female (e.g., Groot et al, 2021;Martínez-Pérez et al, 2021;Mazzoni, 2019) and restricted to young undergraduates in a single Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic cultural context (for a review, see Henrich, 2020). Therefore, future studies should explore the generalizability of the present findings and further validate, or challenge, the switching account of mind wandering.…”

“…These findings are perplexing because (a) mind wandering is conceived as a resourcedemanding process that should result in impaired task performance due to insufficient cognitive resources being devoted to the task at hand (Smallwood, 2010;Smallwood & Schooler, 2006;Thomson et al, 2015); and (b) mind wandering has repeatedly been found to impair performance on tasks that tap the other core executive control measures-working memory (e.g., Goller et al, 2020;Schurer et al, 2020;Soemer & Schiefele, 2020) and inhibition (e.g., Banks & Welhaf, 2021;Groot et al, 2021;Martínez-Pérez et al, 2021).…”

Neural Representations of Self-Generated Thought during Think-aloud fMRI

“…Researchers have demonstrated that both forms of mind wandering can exist simultaneously and that unintentional mind-wandering is more frequent than intentional mind-wandering, regardless of the type of task being performed (Seli et al, 2016a; Seli et al, 2016b). In addition, these two forms of thought are differentially related to task difficulty; intentional mind wandering rate was higher in an easy task than in a difficult task, whereas unintentional mind wandering rate was lower in an easy task than in a difficult task (Martínez-Pérez et al, 2021; Seli et al, 2016a). We did not measure whether each self-generated thought episode was generated intentionally or unintentionally.…”