The dynamic framework of mind wandering revisited: How mindful meta-awareness affects mental states’ constraints

Konjedi, Shaghayegh; Maleeh, Reza

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2021.103194

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study investigated thought constraint as a potential individual differences variable, complimenting other recent studies (Alperin et al, 2021;Christoff et al, 2016;Girn et al, 2020;Kam et al, 2021;Konjedi & Maleeh, 2021;Mills et al, 2018;Mills et al, 2021;O'Neill et al, 2020;Smith et al, 2018;Smith et al, 2022). Specifically, I wanted to know whether thought constraint was dissociable from task relatedness, whether thought constraint showed stability over time, to estimate associations between psychopathology symptoms and thought constraint, and if thought constraint impacts task performance differently than task-unrelated thought.…”

Section: Dissociating Thought Constraint From Task Relatednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thought Constraint as an Individual Differences Variable

Daniel¹,

Meier²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This quasi-experimental study examined the dissociability of thought constraint from task relatedness (i.e., whether thoughts are related to the task at hand) and the rank-order stability of thought constraint. The study also tested predictions (Christoff et al., 2016) about the relationship between thought constraint and psychological symptoms and the influence of thought constraint on task performance. Like previous research, thought constraint was dissociable from task relatedness (Alperin et al., 2021; Kam et al., 2021; Mills et al., 2018; Mills et al., 2021; O’Neill et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2018). Thought constraint demonstrated rank-order stability across two measures of sustained attention. Higher reports of depressive symptoms, rumination, state anxiety, and trait anxiety were associated with less constrained thoughts, which is contrary to the predictions of Christoff et al. (2016) and Mills et al. (2021). Consistent with Christoff et al. (2016) and Alperin et al. (2021), higher reports of overall ADHD symptoms (inattention and hyperactivity combined) were associated with less constrained thought. As expected, symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity alone were positively associated with less constrained thought. Thought constraint also predicted unique variance in response accuracy via the Sustained Attention to Response Task (Robertson et al., 1997; as in Smith et al., 2022) and response time variability via the Metronome Response Task (Seli et al., 2013a). There was an interaction between thought constraint and task relatedness in the model predicting SART response time variability, indicating that response time was more variable when thoughts were off-task and less constrained than usual. The study suggests that thought constraint is a promising individual differences variable, but further research is needed to fully understand this phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Dissociating Thought Constraint From Task Relatednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thought Constraint as an Individual Differences Variable

Daniel¹,

Meier²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Examining the effects of a modified SART when measuring mind‐wandering

Liu

Dong

et al. 2023

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMind‐wandering (MW) is defined as a shift of attention from external tasks toward internal thoughts and is popularly measured by the sustained attention to response task (SART). SART is able to capture MW, but cannot track the dynamics of mind‐wandering over time well. We thus attempted to modify the sustained attention to response task paradigm (mSART) to capture the participant's mind‐wandering state over time and quantify the degree of mind‐wandering using the current behavioral data.Methods179 participants from Wenzhou Medical University were recruited to participate in this experiment. The main changes to the experiment included (1) manipulating different no‐go stimuli frequencies to control the difficulty of the task and setting 9 modes; (2) extending the experiment time to 30 min; (3) allowing participants to correct errors by pressing the b key. Error rate, Mean RTs, RT CV, and d' were used to reflect MW. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed.ResultsANOVA was used to explore Mean RTs, RT CV and d’ for participants with different levels of mind‐wandering and significant differences were found (Mean RTs:Welch's F (2, 8606.04) = 579.00, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.03; RT CV:Welch's F (2, 198.11) = 69.93, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.18; d':F (2, 176) = 19.88, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.18). The 30‐min experiment was divided into six time windows, and mind‐wandering deepens over time.ConclusionsThe mSART paradigm could quantify the extent of MW based on changes in the frequency at which the no‐go stimuli were presented and also revealed that the recommended length of the experiment was about 20 min.

show abstract

Meta-awareness, mind wandering and negative mood in the context of the continuity hypothesis of dreaming

Maleeh

Konjedi

2022

Phenom Cogn Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamic framework of mind wandering revisited: How mindful meta-awareness affects mental states’ constraints

Cited by 4 publications

References 114 publications

Thought Constraint as an Individual Differences Variable

Thought Constraint as an Individual Differences Variable

Examining the effects of a modified SART when measuring mind‐wandering

Meta-awareness, mind wandering and negative mood in the context of the continuity hypothesis of dreaming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About