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
. 2019 Jun 8;2019(1):niz007.
doi: 10.1093/nc/niz007. eCollection 2019.

Long-term dynamics of mind wandering: ultradian rhythms in thought generation

Chie Nakatani  1 , Benjamin Ganschow  1 , Cees van Leeuwen  1   2
Affiliations

Long-term dynamics of mind wandering: ultradian rhythms in thought generation

Chie Nakatani et al. Neurosci Conscious. .

Abstract

Using the method of experience sampling, we studied the fluctuations in thought generation and cognitive control strength during the wakeful hours of the day, centered around episodes of mind wandering. Thought generation, measured in terms of the number of thoughts that concurrently occupy the mind at sampling time, goes through regular 4-6 h cycles, suggesting the mind operates with an alternation of focused and multitasking modes. Cognitive control strength rises and falls in relative coordination with thought generation, implying that both are occasionally misaligned. This happens, in particular, when cognitive control suddenly drops after having been keeping up with a cycle of thought generation. When this drop occurs while the thought generation cycle is still up, mind wandering appears. As cognitive control quickly resumes before returning to intermediate values, the thought generation cycle begins to fall again, and the mind wandering episode comes to an end. Implications regarding the role of long-term regulation in mind-wandering processes are discussed.

Keywords: cognitive control; experience sampling; spontaneous thought.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Illustration of different evolutions of the mental state leading to mind wandering, as depicted in a putative 2D state space, adopted and modified from Fig. 1 in Christoff et al. (2016). The horizontal axis shows the level of cognitive control, corresponding to Christoff et al.’s (2016) notion of strength of deliberate constraints. The vertical axis shows the number of thoughts in mind, corresponding to their notion of strength of automatic constraints. The mind-wandering region (shaded in green) falls within the specter of spontaneous thought. Different trajectories (represented as dotted arrows) lead toward the mind-wandering region.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Scene closeness rating task. The mask/fixation display is presented for 2000 ms, followed by a 250 ms presentation of a scene, again the mask/fixation for 250 ms, then the same scene as is shown again until the participant swipes down the phone display. The participant is asked to judge whether the object is closer/farther away the second time than the first time.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Frequency distributions of individual minimum, mean, and maximum Rating (R) scores. Histograms of the minimum (top), mean (middle), and maximum closeness R scores (bottom). The R scores in mind wandering (MW) and focused (FC) states are shown in yellow and green, respectively.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Probability of mind wandering in time. The probability mind wandering is plot for each 1-h time bin. The lower and the upper boundaries of the bins are indicated next to bin numbers along the horizontal axis, e.g. (0, 1) for Bin 0. Error bars indicate SD.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Number of thoughts (NoTs) in time. Time course of NoTs (dMean) is plot in percentile of the corresponding bootstrap distribution. A higher percentile value indicates a higher number of thoughts.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
R scores in time. Time course of R scores (dMin) is plot in percentile of the corresponding bootstrap distribution. A higher percentile value indicates stronger cognitive control.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Trajectory of mind wandering. The vertical axis indicates percentile of the number of thoughts (NoTs) of the corresponding bootstrap distribution in dMean. A higher percentile indicates a larger number of thoughts. The horizontal axis indicates the percentile of the scene closeness rating score (R score) of the corresponding bootstrap distribution in dMin. A higher percentile indicates a higher level of deliberate constraints. Number labels next to data points indicate the distance in hourly bins from the mind wandering bin (Bin 0). Blue and orange indicate the trajectory segments before and after mind wandering, respectively. Disk size around each data points indicates inter-individual variability of the trajectory.
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Inter-individual variability in trajectory. Percentile values of the variability in the trajectory are plotted against time bins.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Andrews-Hanna JR, Irving ZC, Fox KC. et al. The neuroscience of spontaneous thought: an evolving, interdisciplinary field In: Christoff K and Fox KCR (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Spontaneous Thought: Mind–Wandering, Creativity, and Dreaming. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, 1–39.
    1. Antrobus JS. Information theory and stimulus‐independent thought. Br J Psychol 1968;59:423–30.
    1. Baird B, Smallwood J, Lutz A. et al. The decoupled mind: mind-wandering disrupts cortical phase-locking to perceptual events. J Cogn Neurosci 2014;26:2596–607. - PubMed
    1. Beaty RE, Benedek M, Kaufman SB. et al. Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Sci. Rep. 2015;5:10964. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bermudez EB, Klerman EB, Czeisler CA. et al. Prediction of vigilant attention and cognitive performance using self-reported alertness, circadian phase, hours since awakening, and accumulated sleep loss. PLoS One 2016;11:e0151770.. - PMC - PubMed