Mind-Wandering and Driving: Comparing Thought Report and Individual Difference Measures
DOI: 10.17077/drivingassessment.1668
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 discrepancy between two common methods for measuring mind-wandering during driving: in-task thought probes and post-task self-reports. Mind-wandering, defined as attention diverted from the primary task to internal thoughts, is known to impair driving performance, yet it remains unclear whether these measurement techniques capture the same cognitive experience or yield equivalent performance outcomes. The authors hypothesized that post-task reports might underestimate mind-wandering due to memory decay and that the intrusive nature of thought probes might alter driving behavior. To test this, the researchers also examined how individual differences in working memory, measured by the Operation Span (OSPAN) and Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), interact with these reporting methods. Sixty-three licensed undergraduate students participated in a driving simulator study, randomly assigned to either a thought-probe or post-task condition. Participants completed two 30-minute highway drives following a lead vehicle. In the thought-probe condition, participants responded to auditory cues asking if they were thinking about driving; the proportion of "no" responses served as the mind-wandering index. In the post-task condition, participants estimated the percentage of time spent mind-wandering after each drive. Driving performance was assessed via speed, steering variability, headway distance, and hazard response times (gas and brake reaction times) to an unexpected braking event by the lead vehicle. Individual differences were assessed using OSPAN and SART scores prior to the driving tasks. Results indicated that the thought-probe condition captured a significantly higher magnitude of mind-wandering than post-task estimates. Counterintuitively, hazard response times were faster in the thought-probe condition despite higher reported mind-wandering, suggesting that the probes may have interrupted off-task thoughts and restored attention. Individual difference analyses revealed divergent patterns: higher OSPAN scores were associated with greater reported mind-wandering, but only in the post-task condition, likely reflecting better metacognitive awareness rather than increased wandering. Conversely, lower SART scores were associated with slower hazard response times, but only in the post-task condition; no such performance deficit appeared in the thought-probe condition. The findings demonstrate that thought probes and post-task reports do not measure identical experiences or produce consistent performance correlations. The authors conclude that the choice of measurement method significantly influences both the reported incidence of mind-wandering and associated driving behaviors. This implies that findings from studies using one method may not be generalizable to those using the other. The study highlights the need for caution in interpreting existing literature and advocates for the development of covert, non-intrusive measures, such as eye-tracking or electroencephalography, to accurately assess task engagement without disrupting the natural flow of driving.
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.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | Crossref | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| archive | success | canonical_url | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-08-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| enrich | success | semantic_scholar | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-08-09 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-nvidia | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-08-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 10 | 2026-08-11 |
| verify | partial | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-08-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified_with_issues.
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).
- Empirical Findings: behavioral performance data
- Methodological Resource: measurement protocol
- Theoretical Contribution: theory or model