Self-reported mind wandering reflects executive control and selective attention
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02110-3
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This study investigates the cognitive mechanisms underlying mind wandering, specifically addressing whether performance decrements are caused by failures in executive control, volatile information processing, or shortcomings in selective attention. While previous research has linked mind wandering to increased behavioral variability, descriptive analyses have struggled to discriminate between competing theoretical accounts. To resolve this, the authors propose a cognitive-model based analysis that simultaneously explains self-reported mind wandering and task performance, allowing for a quantitative comparison of six distinct explanations for poor performance during mind-wandering episodes. The researchers analyzed data from two experiments using the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), a go-nogo task where participants must inhibit habitual responses to rare target stimuli. Experiment 1 included 19 participants, while Experiment 2 included 192 participants. The study employed a joint modeling framework that structurally bound a Thurstonian model of self-reported mind wandering (derived from thought probes) to the Timed Racing Diffusion Model (TRDM), which models the latent cognitive processes of decision-making. This approach allowed the authors to test whether mind wandering was associated with specific TRDM parameters, including evidence accumulation rates for go and nogo stimuli, processing volatility, and timing processes. By comparing the fit of six joint models, the study determined which latent cognitive components were most strongly associated with self-reported off-task thoughts. The results provided strong quantitative evidence that mind wandering is primarily associated with impaired executive control. Specifically, the best-fitting models indicated that increased mind wandering corresponds to a reduced ability to inhibit habitual response tendencies, manifested as a decreased ability to selectively attend to the information value of rare but task-critical events. The analysis revealed that mind wandering was most strongly linked to the evidence accumulation rate for correctly identifying target (nogo) stimuli. In contrast, theories proposing that mind wandering is driven by volatility in information processing or timing processes received significantly weaker support. The preferred model accurately captured key trends in response times, accuracy, and self-report data across both experiments, demonstrating that the association between mind wandering and executive control deficits is robust. The significance of these findings lies in clarifying the cognitive architecture of mind wandering. The study concludes that mind wandering is not merely a result of noisy or volatile processing, but rather reflects a specific failure in executive control: the inability to maintain selective attention on rare, task-relevant stimuli against the backdrop of habitual responding. This distinction refines existing theories by pinpointing the exact cognitive mechanism—reduced inhibition of habitual responses—that leads to performance lapses during mind wandering. By successfully integrating self-report and behavioral data within a single cognitive model, the paper demonstrates a methodological advance in linking subjective experiences to latent psychological processes, offering a more precise understanding of how mind wandering impacts sustained attention and decision-making.
Key finding
Self-reported mind wandering is primarily associated with impaired executive control, specifically a reduced ability to inhibit habitual response tendencies and selectively attend to rare task-critical stimuli.
Methodology
lab_experiment
Sample size: 211
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | author_sweep | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-28 |
| archive | success | canonical_url | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-28 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 15 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Theoretical Contribution: theory or model