Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun 18:4:360.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360. eCollection 2013.

In pursuit of off-task thought: mind wandering-performance trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming

Affiliations

In pursuit of off-task thought: mind wandering-performance trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming

David R Thomson et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

The present study investigated whether the frequency of probe-caught mind wandering varied by condition and had any impact on performance in both an item-by-item reading aloud task and a blocked version of the classic Stroop task. Across both experiments, mind wandering rates were found to be quite high and were negatively associated with vocal onset latencies and error rates across conditions. Despite this however, we observed poor correspondence between the effects of task demands on mind wandering rates and the effects of mind wandering on primary task performance. We discuss these findings in relation to attentional resource accounts of mind wandering and suggest that individuals can adjust the relative distribution of executive/attentional resources between internal and external goals in a way that maximizes off-task thought while preserving primary task performance.

Keywords: attention; mind wandering; performance; reading; stroop.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Mean percentages of “off-task” responses to the thought probes as a function of item type and sample. (B) Mean vocal onset latencies for reading aloud as a function of item type and sample, and (C) corresponding error percentages. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Mean percentages of “off-task” responses to the thought probes as a function of trial type. (B) Mean vocal onset latencies as a function of trial type and sample (and corresponding error percentages). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A theoretical depiction of the distribution of executive/attentional resources in the word reading and non-word reading conditions of Experiment 1. The ideal distribution point is shown; the point at which mind wandering is maximized without impinging on resources needed for reading. A distribution point to the left of the one shown would result in primary task performance costs, whereas a distribution point to the right of the one shown would result in a decrease in mind wandering with no appreciable benefits to primary task performance.

References

    1. Bench C., Frith C. D., Grasby P. M., Friston K. J., Paulesu E., Frackowiak R. S. J., et al. (1993). Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia 31, 907–922 10.1016/0028-3932(93)90147-R - DOI - PubMed
    1. Besner D., Care S. (2003). A paradigm for exploring what the mind does while deciding what it should do. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 57, 311–320 10.1037/h0087434 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Besner D., Stolz J. A. (1999). What kind of attention modulates the Stroop Effect? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6, 99–104 10.3758/BF03210815 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown T. L., Gore C. L., Carr T. H. (2002). Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: is word recognition “automatic?” J. Exp. Psychol. 131, 220–240 10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.220 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crump M. J., Gong Z., Milliken B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 316–321 10.3758/BF03193850 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources