Hubbry Logo
Mind-wanderingMind-wanderingMain
Open search
Mind-wandering
Community hub
Mind-wandering
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mind-wandering
Mind-wandering
Mind-wandering
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mind-wandering is broadly defined as thoughts unrelated to the task at hand, consisting of thoughts that are task-unrelated and stimulus-independent.[1][2] This can take the form of three different subtypes: positive constructive daydreaming, guilty fear of failure, and poor attentional control.[3]

A common understanding of mind-wandering is the experience of thoughts not remaining on a single topic for a long period of time, particularly when people are engaged in an attention-demanding task.[4]

One context in which mind-wandering often occurs is driving. This is because driving under optimal conditions becomes an almost automatic activity that can require minimal use of the task positive network,[5] the brain network that is active when one is engaged in an attention-demanding activity. In situations where vigilance is low, people do not remember what happened in the surrounding environment because they are preoccupied with their thoughts. This is known as the decoupling hypothesis.[6]

Studies using event-related potentials (ERPs) have shown that mind-wandering reduces the brain's processing of external information. When thoughts are unrelated to the task at hand, the brain processes both task-relevant and unrelated sensory information in a less detailed manner.[7][8][9]

Mind-wandering appears to be a stable trait of people and a transient state. Studies have linked performance problems in the laboratory[10] and in daily life.[11] Mind-wandering has been associated with possible car accidents.[12] Mind-wandering is also intimately linked to states of affect. Studies indicate that task-unrelated thoughts are common in people with low or depressed mood.[13][14] Mind-wandering also occurs when a person is intoxicated via the consumption of alcohol.[15]

Studies have demonstrated a prospective bias to spontaneous thought because individuals tend to engage in more future than past related thoughts during mind-wandering.[16] The default mode network is thought to be involved in mind-wandering and internally directed thought,[17] although recent work has challenged this assumption.[18] Nondirective meditation methods, like Acem-meditation, utilize the spontaneous mind-wandering tendencies of the mind. Therefore, such techniques may be less demanding and more effective than meditation methods that apply concentration.[19]

History

[edit]

The history of mind-wandering research dates back to 18th century England. British philosophers struggled to determine whether mind-wandering occurred in the mind or if an outside source caused it. In 1921, Varendonck published The Psychology of Day-Dreams, in which he traced his "'trains of thoughts' to identify their origins, most often irrelevant external influences".[20][page needed]

Wallas (1926) considered mind-wandering as an important aspect of his second stage of creative thought – incubation.[21][page needed] It was not until the 1960s that the first documented studies were conducted on mind-wandering.[22] John Antrobus and Jerome L. Singer developed a questionnaire and discussed the experience of mind-wandering.[23]

This questionnaire, known as the Imaginal Processes Inventory (IPI), provides a trait measure of mind-wandering and it assesses the experience on three dimensions: how vivid the person's thoughts are, how many of those thoughts are guilt- or fear-based, and how deep into the thought a person goes. As technology continues to develop, psychologists are starting to use functional magnetic resonance imaging to observe mind-wandering in the brain and reduce psychologists' reliance on verbal reports.[22]

Research methods

[edit]

Jonathan Smallwood and colleagues popularized the study of mind-wandering using thought sampling and questionnaires.[6] Mind-wandering is studied using experience sampling either online or retrospectively. One common paradigm within which to study mind-wandering is the SART (sustained attention to response task).[10]

In a SART task there are two categories of words. One of the categories are the target words. In each block of the task a word appears for about 300 ms, there will be a pause and then another word. When a target word appears the participant hits a designated key. About 60% of the time after a target word a thought probe will appear to gauge whether thoughts were on task. If participants were not engaged in the task they were experiencing task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs), signifying mind-wandering.[4][24][volume needed][page needed]

Another task to judge TUTs is the experience sampling method (ESM). Participants carry around a personal digital assistant (PDA) that signals several times a day. At the signal a questionnaire is provided. The questionnaire questions vary but can include: (a) whether or not their minds had wandered at the time of the (b) what state of control they had over their thoughts and (c) about the content of their thoughts.[25]

Questions about context are also asked to measure the level of attention necessary for the task.[25] One process used was to give participants something to focus on and then at different times ask them what they were thinking about. Those who were not thinking about what was given to them were considered "wandering". Another process was to have participants keep a diary of their mind-wandering. Participants are asked to write a brief description of their mind-wandering and the time in which it happened.[26][27] These methodologies are improvements on past methods that were inconclusive.

Neuroscience

[edit]

Mind-wandering is important in understanding how the brain produces what William James called the train of thought and the stream of consciousness. This aspect of mind-wandering research is focused on understanding how the brain generates the spontaneous and relatively unconstrained thoughts that are experienced when the mind wanders.[28][29]

One candidate neural mechanism for generating this aspect of experience is a network of regions in the medial frontal and medial parietal cortex known as the default network. This network of regions is highly active even when participants are resting with their eyes closed[30] suggesting a role in generating spontaneous internal thoughts.[28][31] One relatively controversial result is that periods of mind-wandering are associated with increased activation in both the default and executive system[29] a result that implies that mind-wandering may often be goal oriented.[16][32][33][34]

It is commonly assumed that the default mode network is known to be involved during mind-wandering. The default mode network is active when a person is not focused on the outside world and the brain is at wakeful rest because experiences such as mind-wandering and daydreaming are common in this state.[16]

It is also active when the individual is thinking about others, thinking about themselves, remembering the past, and planning for the future.[17] However, recent studies show that signals in the default mode network provide information regarding patterns of detailed experience in active tasks states.[35] This data suggests that the relationship between the default mode network and mind-wandering remains a matter of conjecture.

In addition to neural models, computational models of consciousness based on Bernard Baars' Global Workspace theory[36][page needed][37][page needed] suggest that mind-wandering, or "spontaneous thought" may involve competition between internally and externally generated activities attempting to gain access to a limited capacity central network.[38]

Individual differences

[edit]

There are individual differences in some aspects of mind-wandering between older and younger adults.[39][40][41] Although older adults reported less mind-wandering, these older participants showed the same amount of mind-wandering as younger adults. There were also differences in how participants responded to an error.

After an error, older adults took longer to return focus back to the task when compared with younger adults. It is possible that older adults reflect more about an error due to conscientiousness.[40][41] Research has shown that older adults tend to be more conscientious than young adults.[40] Personality can also affect mind-wandering.[39][40][41]

People that are more conscientious are less prone to mind-wandering. Being more conscientious allows people to stay focused on the task better which causes fewer instances of mind-wandering. Differences in mind-wandering between young and older adults may be limited because of this personality difference.[citation needed]

Mental disorders such as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) are linked to mind-wandering. Seli et al. (2015) found that spontaneous mind-wandering, the uncontrolled or unwarranted shifting of attention, is a characteristic of those who have ADHD. However, they note that deliberate mind-wandering, or the purposeful shifting of one's attention to different stimuli, is not a consistent characteristic of having ADHD.[42]

Franklin et al. (2016) arrived at similar conclusions; they had college students take multiple psychological evaluations that gauge ADHD symptom strength. Then, they had the students read a portion of a general science textbook. At various times and at random intervals throughout their reading, participants were prompted to answer a question that asked if their attention was either on task, slightly on task, slightly off task, or off task prior to the interruption.

In addition, they were asked if they were aware, unaware, or neither aware nor unaware of their thoughts as they read. Lastly, they were tasked to press the space bar if they ever caught themselves mind-wandering. For a week after these assessments, the students answered follow-up questions that also gauged mind-wandering and awareness.

This study's results revealed that students with higher ADHD symptomology showed less task-oriented control than those with lower ADHD symptomology. Additionally, those with lower ADHD symptomology were more likely to engage in useful or deliberate mind-wandering and were more aware of their inattention. One of the strengths of this study is that it was performed in both lab and daily-life situations, giving it broad application.[43]

Mind-wandering in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of attention deficiencies. Studies show that humans typically spend 25-50% of their time thinking about thoughts irrelevant to their current situations.[44]

In many disorders it is the regulation of the overall amount of mind-wandering that is disturbed, leading to increased distractibility when performing tasks.[45][46] Additionally, the contents of mind-wandering is changed; thoughts can be more negative and past-oriented, particularly unstable or self-centered.[47][48][49]

Working memory

[edit]
See also: Working memory § Attention

Recent research has studied the relationship between mind-wandering and working memory capacity.[39] Working memory capacity represents personal skill to have a good command of individual's mind.[clarification needed][50] This relationship[clarification needed] requires more research to understand how they influence one another. It is possible that mind-wandering causes lower performance on working memory capacity tasks or that lower working memory capacity causes more instances of mind-wandering.[51]

Only the second of these has actually been proven. Reports[who?] of task-unrelated thoughts are less frequent when performing[who?] tasks that do not demand continuous use of working memory than tasks which do.[16] Moreover, individual difference studies[clarification needed] demonstrate that when tasks are non-demanding, high levels of working memory capacity are associated with more frequent reports of task-unrelated thinking[52][53] especially when it is focused on the future.[54] By contrast, when performing tasks that demand continuous attention, high levels of working memory capacity are associated with fewer reports of task-unrelated thoughts.[11]

Together these data are consistent with the claim that working memory capacity helps sustain a train of thought whether it is generated in response to a perceptual event or is self-generated by the individual. Therefore, under certain circumstances, the experience of mind-wandering is supported by working memory resources.[55] Working memory capacity variation in individuals has been proven to be a good predictor of the natural tendency for mind-wandering to occur during cognitively demanding tasks and various activities in daily life.[25][56][57]

Mind-wandering sometimes occurs as a result of saccades, which are the movements of one's eyes to different visual stimuli. In an antisaccade task, for example, subjects with higher working memory capacity scores resisted looking at the flashing visual cue better than participants with lower working memory capacity.[58] Higher working memory capacity is associated with fewer saccades toward environmental cues.[59][60]

Mind-wandering has been shown to be related to goal orientation; people with higher working memory capacity keep their goals more accessible than those who have lower working memory capacity, thus allowing these goals to better guide their behavior and keep them on task.[33][58][61]

Another study compared differences in speed of processing information between people of different ages.[34][39] The task they used was a go/no go task where participants responded if a white arrow moved in a specific direction but did not respond if the arrow moved in the other direction or was a different color. In this task, children and young adults showed similar speed of processing but older adults were significantly slower.

Speed of processing information affects how much information can be processed in working memory.[34][62] People with faster speed of processing can encode information into memory better than people that have slower speed of processing. This can lead to memory of more items because more things can be encoded.

Retention

[edit]

Mind-wandering affects retention where working memory capacity is directly related to reading comprehension levels. Participants with lower working memory capacity perform worse on comprehension-based tests.[39][52]

When investigating how mind-wandering affects retention of information, experiments are conducted where participants are asked a variety of questions about factual information, or deducible information while reading a detective novel. Participants are also asked about the state of their mind before the questions are asked.

Throughout the reading itself, the author provides important cues to identify the villain, known as inference critical episodes (ICEs). The questions are asked randomly and before critical episodes are reached. It was found that episodes of mind-wandering, especially early on in the text led to decreased identification of the villain and worse results on both factual and deducible questions.

Therefore, when mind-wandering occurs during reading, the text is not processed well enough to remember key information about the story. Furthermore, both the timing and the frequency of mind-wandering helps determine how much information is retained from the narrative.[63][64]

Reading comprehension

[edit]

Reading comprehension must also be investigated in terms of text difficulty. To assess this, researchers provide an easy and hard version of a reading task. During this task, participants are interrupted and asked whether their thoughts at the time of interruption had been related or unrelated to the task. What is found is that mind-wandering has a negative effect on text comprehension in more difficult readings.

This supports the executive-resource hypothesis which describes that both task related and task-unrelated thoughts (TUT) compete for executive function resources. Therefore, when the primary task is difficult, little resources are available for mind-wandering, whereas when the task is simple, the possibility for mind-wandering is abundant because it takes little executive control to focus on simple tasks.

However, mind-wandering tends to occur more frequently in harder readings as opposed to easier readings. Therefore, it is possible that similar to retention, mind-wandering increases when readers have difficulty constructing a model of the story.[64][65]

Happiness

[edit]

As part of his doctoral research at Harvard University, Matthew Killingsworth used an iPhone app that captured a user's feelings in real time.[66][67] The tool alerts the user at random times and asks: "How are you feeling right now?" and "What are you doing right now?"[68] Killingsworth and Gilbert's analysis suggested that mind-wandering was much more typical in daily activities than in laboratory settings.

They also describe that people were less happy when their minds were wandering than when they were otherwise occupied. This effect was somewhat counteracted by people's tendency to mind-wander to happy topics, but unhappy mind-wandering was more likely to be rated as more unpleasant than other activities.

The authors note that unhappy moods can also cause mind-wandering, but the time-lags between mind-wandering and mood suggests that mind-wandering itself can also lead to negative moods.[68] Furthermore, research suggests that regardless of working memory capacity, subjects participating in mind-wandering experiments report more mind-wandering when bored, stressed, or unhappy.[25][64]

Executive functions

[edit]

Executive functions (EFs) are cognitive processes that make a person pay attention or concentrate on a task.[69][70] Three executive functions that relate to memory are inhibiting, updating and shifting. Inhibiting controls a person's attention and thoughts when distractions are abundant.[69][71][72][73] Updating reviews old information and replaces it with new information in the working memory.[71][72][73] Shifting controls the ability to go between multiple tasks.[71][72][73] All three EFs have a relationship to mind-wandering.[74]

Executive functions have roles in attention problems, attention control, thought control, and working memory capacity.[4][25][39][71][72][73][75] Attention problems relate to behavioral problems such as inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity.[72][73] These behaviors make staying on task difficult leading to more mind-wandering.[72] Higher inhibiting and updating abilities correlates to lower levels of attention problems in adolescence.[72][76]

The inhibiting executive function controls attention and thought. The failure of cognitive inhibition is a direct cause of mind-wandering.[4][25][71][77] Mind-wandering is also connected to working memory capacity (WMC).[25][75] People with higher WMC mind-wander less on high concentration tasks no matter their boredom levels. People with low WMC are better at staying on task for low concentration tasks, but once the task increases in difficulty they had a hard time keeping their thoughts focused on task.[25]

Updating takes place in the working memory, therefore those with low WMC have a lower updating executive function ability.[25][75] That means a low performing updating executive function can be an indicator of high mind-wandering.[25] Working memory relies on executive functions, with mind-wandering as an indicator of their failure.[39][75] Task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) are empirical behavioral manifestations of mind-wandering in a person.[4][39][41] The longer a task is performed the more TUTs reported.[4][41] Mind-wandering is an indication of an executive control failure that is characterized by TUTs.[4][39][41]

Metacognition serves to correct the wandering mind, suppressing spontaneous thoughts and bringing attention back to more "worthwhile" tasks.[78][79]

Fidgeting

[edit]

Paul Seli and colleagues have shown that spontaneous mind-wandering is associated with increased fidgeting;[80][81] by contrast, interest, attention and visual engagement lead to Non-Instrumental Movement Inhibition.[82] One possible application for this phenomenon is that detection of non-instrumental movements may be an indicator of attention or boredom in computer aided learning.

Traditionally teachers and students have viewed fidgeting as a sign of diminished attention,[83] which is summarized by the statement, "Concentration of consciousness, and concentration of movements, diffusion of ideas and diffusion of movements go together."[84] However, James Farley and colleagues have proposed that fidgeting is not only an indicator of spontaneous mind-wandering, but is also a subconscious attempt to increase arousal in order to improve attention and thus reduce mind-wandering.[85]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mind-wandering

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mind-wandering is a common psychological phenomenon in which an individual's spontaneously shifts away from the current task or external stimuli toward internal, task-unrelated thoughts, often involving self-generated mental content such as memories, future plans, or daydreams. This decoupling of from the present moment represents a fundamental aspect of human cognition, occurring frequently across various activities and contexts. Research indicates that mind-wandering occupies a substantial portion of daily life, with estimates suggesting it accounts for approximately 30% to 50% of waking hours, depending on the task demands and individual differences. It can be broadly categorized into two types: intentional mind-wandering, where individuals deliberately disengage from the task to pursue personal reflections or goals, and unintentional mind-wandering, which arises spontaneously without conscious intent, often triggered by environmental cues or unresolved concerns. These distinctions highlight the variability in how mind-wandering manifests, influencing its detectability and subjective experience. Although mind-wandering often impairs performance on focused tasks by reducing accuracy and response times, it also serves adaptive functions, such as facilitating autobiographical , , and emotional . For instance, periods of off-task thought may enhance future-oriented thinking and generate novel ideas, contributing to long-term personal and . However, excessive or poorly timed mind-wandering has been linked to negative outcomes, including increased errors in high-stakes situations like driving and associations with mood disturbances or attention-related disorders. Ongoing research explores its neural underpinnings, primarily involving the , to better understand its evolutionary role and potential interventions.

Overview and Definition

Definition

Mind-wandering is defined as a shift in attention away from an external task or environmental stimuli toward internal, task-unrelated thoughts that occur either spontaneously or deliberately. This phenomenon, also known as task-unrelated thought (TUT) or wandering mind, encompasses unconstrained mentation that is decoupled from perceptual input, allowing cognition to prioritize endogenous processes over immediate external demands. A key distinction lies between spontaneous and deliberate forms of mind-wandering: spontaneous episodes arise unintentionally without conscious initiation, while deliberate ones involve a volitional decision to disengage from the task and engage in internal reflection. This dichotomy highlights mind-wandering's variability, where unintentional drifts represent a default cognitive mode, and intentional shifts serve more directed introspective purposes. From an evolutionary standpoint, mind-wandering may confer adaptive benefits by supporting future-oriented planning and , enabling individuals to simulate potential scenarios detached from immediate constraints. Analogous processes appear in of future-oriented , such as corvids like western scrub-jays caching food based on anticipated future needs, suggesting conserved mechanisms for prospective across .

Types and Characteristics

Mind-wandering can be categorized into subtypes based on the of the thought process, primarily spontaneous (unintentional) and deliberate (volitional) forms. Spontaneous mind-wandering occurs without conscious effort, arising as task-unrelated thoughts intrude during ongoing activities, such as daydreaming about unrelated personal concerns while reading. In contrast, deliberate mind-wandering involves volitional shifts to internal thoughts, often purposefully engaged during low-stakes moments, like intentionally reflecting on future plans during a routine commute. Examples of content within these subtypes include prospective mind-wandering, which focuses on future simulations such as planning upcoming events, and forms akin to rumination, involving replays of past experiences like regretting a recent . Mind-wandering episodes are characteristically episodic, manifesting as transient shifts in that are often self-referential and future-oriented, with thoughts centering on personal goals, , or hypothetical scenarios. These episodes occur frequently, comprising approximately 30-50% of waking time, as estimated from experience-sampling methods that probe thoughts at random intervals during daily activities. A key feature is perceptual decoupling, where disengages from external sensory inputs, reducing responsiveness to the environment and leading to performance errors, such as missing key details while reading or reacting slowly in scenarios. Episodes typically last for short bursts ranging from seconds to minutes, rather than prolonged states, allowing for intermittent returns to task focus. They are commonly triggered by conditions of low cognitive demand or , such as during monotonous tasks where external stimuli provide insufficient engagement to sustain .

Historical Development

Early Concepts

Early observations of mind-wandering can be traced to ancient philosophical traditions, where uncontrolled thoughts were viewed as impediments to ethical living and mental discipline. In Aristotle's , distraction arises in the context of (weakness of will), where individuals knowingly deviate from rational judgment due to immediate sensual pleasures or emotional pulls that divert the mind from virtuous action, portraying such mental drifts as a failure of rather than mere reverie. Similarly, ancient describe the mind's restless fluctuations as akin to a "monkey mind," an uncontrolled leaping from one thought to another, as illustrated in the Surangama Sutra, where the mind's erratic nature is compared to a monkey clambering through branches, hindering enlightenment and requiring meditative taming to achieve clarity. These early concepts framed mind-wandering not as benign but as a disruptive force in pursuit of moral and spiritual harmony. By the 19th century, psychological inquiries began to formalize these ideas within emerging scientific frameworks. , in his seminal (1890), characterized as a continuous "stream of thought," marked by associative drifts where ideas loosely connect through personal associations rather than strict logic, allowing the mind to wander freely during idle moments and influencing creative or reflective processes. James emphasized that such drifts are inherent to normal , yet they can lead to fragmentation if unchecked, laying groundwork for understanding mind-wandering as a natural but variable mental phenomenon. This perspective shifted focus from purely ethical critiques to psychological mechanisms, highlighting how associative chains enable both innovation and diversion. In Romantic literature, mind-wandering found positive portrayal as a source of inspiration, contrasting earlier moral cautions. William Wordsworth's , such as "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud" (), depicts solitary mental rambles through nature as pathways to emotional renewal and poetic insight, where the poet's drifting thoughts later evoke vivid recollections that nourish the spirit amid urban drudgery. This romantic valorization positioned wandering thoughts as a vital creative force, influencing figures like , who explored similar themes of imaginative reverie in works like "" (1797), born from opium-induced drifts, thereby elevating mind-wandering from to a wellspring of artistic . Victorian-era mental hygiene literature, however, often pathologized these mental excursions, associating them with , moral laziness, or social deviance. Early psychological writings, such as those by figures like , interpreted excessive daydreaming or "waking dreams" as bordering on derangement, a symptom of nervous exhaustion or that threatened and in an . tracts, including ' Self-Help (1859), condemned and attendant mind-wandering as vices fostering indolence and moral weakness, urging disciplined focus to combat what was seen as a precursor to or societal decay. This pathologization reflected broader cultural anxieties about mental discipline amid rapid modernization, viewing uncontrolled thoughts as a personal failing rather than an inevitable cognitive state.

Modern Foundations

The modern foundations of mind-wandering research emerged in the early 20th century through Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic technique of free association, which encouraged patients to verbalize thoughts without censorship to access unconscious processes, laying groundwork for studying spontaneous, task-unrelated mental activity. However, during the mid-20th century, dominated , dismissing internal mental states like mind-wandering as unobservable and irrelevant, prioritizing only measurable behaviors over subjective experiences. This perspective shifted with the of the 1950s and 1960s, which reinstated the scientific study of internal cognitive processes, including and thought diversion, as interdisciplinary efforts in and emphasized mental models and information processing. A pivotal milestone came in 2006 with Jonathan Smallwood and Jonathan Schooler's seminal paper in Psychological Bulletin, which formalized mind-wandering as "task-unrelated thought" (TUT), distinguishing it from other forms of and highlighting its during low-demand tasks, thereby establishing a framework for empirical investigation. Building on this, Kalina Christoff and colleagues' 2009 study in PNAS introduced an early dynamic perspective by using experience sampling during fMRI to link mind-wandering to default network activation, proposing it as a fluid process varying in constraints and content generation. Post-2010 developments integrated with research, revealing inverse relationships where brief practices reduced task-unrelated thoughts and improved , as shown in studies like Mrazek et al.'s 2012 experiment demonstrating decreased mind-wandering after eight minutes of mindful . Concurrently, recognition of mind-wandering's positive functions grew in research, with 2025 studies, such as those by McDaniel et al., finding that intentional and unintentional mind-wandering during incubation periods predicted enhanced creative performance in writing tasks by fostering novel idea connections. This era marked a from viewing mind-wandering primarily as a cognitive deficit impairing focus to an adaptive process supporting future planning and , influenced by positive psychology's emphasis on constructive internal experiences, as articulated in Smallwood and Andrews-Hanna's balanced perspective on its evolutionary benefits.

Measurement and Methods

Self-Report and Behavioral Probes

Self-report methods are fundamental to assessing mind-wandering, as they capture participants' subjective experiences of task-unrelated thoughts. The (ESM), a prominent probe technique, involves interrupting participants at random intervals with thought probes, such as "Are you currently thinking about something other than what you are doing?" or "Are you mind-wandering?" This approach, pioneered in studies of everyday , allows for real-time or near-real-time detection of mind-wandering episodes, revealing that individuals spend approximately 46.9% of their waking hours engaged in such thoughts. Validation of ESM probes often relies on correlations with behavioral performance lapses, where higher self-reported mind-wandering rates align with increased errors or slower responses in ongoing tasks. Trait-level self-report scales provide a broader measure of mind-wandering propensity, often by inverting constructs related to and . The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), originally developed to assess dispositional , inversely reflects chronic mind-wandering tendencies through items evaluating lapses in present-moment , such as "I find myself doing things without paying " or "I tend to walk past a door to a room and then wonder what I came in there for." Scores on the MAAS have been shown to predict state-level mind-wandering in laboratory settings, with lower correlating to more frequent off-task thoughts. State reports, captured via post-task questionnaires, similarly query the frequency and content of mind-wandering during specific activities, offering insights into episodic variations. Behavioral probes complement self-reports by identifying indirect signs of mind-wandering through task performance metrics. In the Sustained Attention to Response Task (), participants withhold responses to infrequent target digits amid frequent non-targets; elevated error rates, particularly commission errors on targets, serve as indicators of mind-wandering, as they reflect momentary attentional decoupling. Eye-tracking provides another behavioral marker, where gaze deviations—such as increased fixations away from task-relevant stimuli or reduced pupil dilation—correlate with self-reported mind-wandering episodes during reading or tasks. These indicators are particularly useful in validating subjective reports, as performance decrements often precede or coincide with probed mind-wandering admissions. Despite their utility, self-report and behavioral probes face notable limitations. Retrospective self-reports are prone to , as participants may overestimate or underestimate mind-wandering based on reconstruction rather than immediate , leading to inaccuracies in estimating or duration. Demand characteristics can also influence responses, with participants potentially underreporting mind-wandering to align with perceived experimental expectations. Recent reviews highlight challenges in distinguishing mind-wandering subtypes, such as intentional versus unintentional , where self-reports show moderate reliability but vary by probe phrasing and task context, underscoring the need for multi-method convergence.

Neuroimaging and Physiological Tools

Neuroimaging techniques such as (fMRI) have been instrumental in detecting mind-wandering by identifying activations in the (DMN), a set of regions including the medial prefrontal cortex and that show increased activity during task-unrelated thoughts. In experience-sampling paradigms during fMRI scans, mind-wandering episodes correlate with heightened DMN engagement and reduced activity in executive control networks, providing objective markers of attentional decoupling from external tasks. (EEG) complements fMRI by offering high , revealing event-related potentials (ERPs) indicative of mind-wandering; specifically, reduced amplitudes in early sensory components like P1 and , as well as the late P3, signal diminished perceptual processing and cognitive engagement during spontaneous thought. Physiological tools capture bodily signals associated with attentional shifts in mind-wandering. Pupillometry tracks as a proxy for and , showing that mind-wandering during reading or vigilance tasks is marked by smaller tonic pupil sizes and attenuated phasic dilations, reflecting lower arousal states compared to on-task focus. (HRV), measured via , serves as another marker, with decreased HRV often observed during mind-wandering, indicating reduced parasympathetic activity and greater autonomic instability linked to internal thought diversion. Recent advances leverage (ML) for real-time detection, particularly with EEG data. Convolutional neural network classifiers trained on EEG features have achieved accuracies of around 70-83% in distinguishing mind-wandering from focused states across sessions or tasks, enabling study-independent predictions despite challenges in generalizability. Multimodal integration, combining fMRI, EEG, and lometry in simultaneous recordings, enhances detection precision by capturing concurrent neural and physiological signatures, such as synchronized DMN BOLD signals with ERP modulations and pupil responses during probe-caught mind-wandering. These tools are validated through correlations with self-reports, where neuroimaging and physiological markers align with experience-sampling probes in 60-80% of cases, confirming their sensitivity to subjective mind-wandering states. However, challenges persist in , as lab-based fMRI lacks real-world portability, while emerging wearable EEG devices like headbands show promise for naturalistic monitoring but suffer from signal noise and lower resolution in unconstrained environments.

Neural Mechanisms

Brain Networks

Mind-wandering is closely associated with the (DMN), a set of interconnected regions that exhibit heightened activity during internally directed and rest. Core hubs of the DMN include the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which supports self-referential processing such as personal trait judgments and future-oriented thinking, and the (PCC), which integrates autobiographical memories and spatial navigation elements into ongoing thought streams. These regions facilitate the of task-unrelated thoughts by maintaining a baseline of internal focus, distinct from external demands. The DMN interacts dynamically with other networks to modulate mind-wandering episodes. It shows anti-correlation with the task-positive network (TPN), particularly the frontoparietal control network, which deactivates during mind-wandering to reduce external and enable internal mentation. Additionally, the DMN incorporates the medial temporal lobe (MTL), including the hippocampus, for integrating episodic memories that enrich mind-wandering content with personal past experiences. This MTL involvement allows for the construction of vivid, narrative-like thoughts drawn from autobiographical recall. Within the DMN, subnetworks contribute to different aspects of mind-wandering. The executive DMN, encompassing dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate regions, supports deliberate forms of mind-wandering by enabling constrained, goal-directed internal thought. In contrast, spontaneous mind-wandering is linked to hotspots in the inferior parietal lobule (IPL), where lesions disrupt the frequency of unconstrained drifts, highlighting its role in initiating off-task reverie. Recent (fMRI) studies from 2025 have revealed DMN reconfiguration during creative mind-wandering, particularly in incubation phases of problem-solving. These findings show increased integration between the DMN and , facilitating novel idea generation through reorganized connectivity patterns that sustain associative thinking.

Functional Dynamics

The transition from focused to mind-wandering states is marked by a reduction in the typical anti-correlation, or inverse coupling, between the task-positive network (TPN) and the default mode network (DMN), enabling greater DMN engagement in internal cognition. This decoupling represents a key phase shift, where external task demands weaken, allowing spontaneous internal thoughts to emerge. Accompanying these neural changes, (EEG) recordings indicate a ramp-up in power, reflecting heightened internal focus and perceptual decoupling from the external environment. The duration of mind-wandering episodes varies with task demands, influencing the persistence of network dynamics. In low-demand tasks, sustained DMN dominance prevails, supporting extended periods of unconstrained internal thought without significant interference from external processing. Conversely, in high-demand tasks, mind-wandering manifests as brief lapses, often interrupted by the , which detects behaviorally relevant stimuli and facilitates rapid re-engagement of the TPN to restore task focus. Neurochemical factors further shape these functional dynamics, particularly through modulation of spontaneous drifts and repetitive thought patterns. levels influence the propensity for off-task drifts, with elevated dopaminergic activity promoting increased mind-wandering by enhancing the flexibility of thought transitions away from current goals. Serotonin is implicated in rumination during mind-wandering episodes; studies show that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as , can reduce repetitive negative self-referential thoughts and associated (DMN) hyperconnectivity in individuals with .

Cognitive Impacts

Attention and Executive Functions

Mind-wandering is closely linked to attentional lapses, where individuals experience temporary disengagements from ongoing tasks, leading to increased errors in vigilance paradigms. In the psychomotor vigilance test (PVT), a standard measure of sustained attention, mind-wandering episodes correlate with slower reaction times and higher lapse rates, as participants fail to respond promptly to stimuli. Similarly, in the sustained attention to response task (SART), zoning out during mind-wandering predicts more commission errors, where individuals incorrectly respond to non-target stimuli, reflecting impaired perceptual coupling to the external environment. These attentional disruptions extend to executive functions, where mind-wandering interferes with core processes such as inhibition and updating. During tasks requiring response inhibition, like the go/no-go paradigm, mind-wandering reduces the ability to suppress prepotent actions, resulting in higher error rates compared to focused states. In tasks, such as the , mind-wandering impairs the updating of information, leading to poorer accuracy in maintaining and manipulating task-relevant items. This pattern mirrors deficits observed in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), where elevated mind-wandering contributes to similar impairments in executive control, though individuals with ADHD may show context-dependent regulation of mind-wandering under varying cognitive loads. A dual-process model frames mind-wandering as arising from the interplay between automatically generated task-unrelated thoughts and failures in executive control, particularly metacognitive monitoring that detects and redirects attentional drifts. When monitoring lapses, the mind defaults to internal , exacerbating executive interference. Studies from the have noted that spontaneous motor activity, such as , often accompanies these drifts and may serve as a behavioral counter by re-engaging attentional resources through embodied action. Recent research highlights mind-wandering's role in vigilance decrement even during brief tasks, with thought probes revealing that off-task thoughts accumulate rapidly, undermining performance within minutes. This aligns with neural anti-correlations between the and task-positive networks, where mind-wandering reflects a shift away from goal-directed .

Memory and Learning

Mind wandering during working memory tasks, such as paradigms, reduces the capacity to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information by diverting cognitive resources toward internal thoughts. This interference leads to poorer performance in retaining and updating information, as mind wandering consumes resources that are otherwise needed for active task engagement. Higher capacity individuals experience less involuntary mind wandering, allowing better control over and reduced disruption to ongoing processes. In , elevated rates of mind wandering are associated with poorer recall of textual content, as drifts away from processing the material. Meta-analyses indicate a moderate negative (r = -0.21) between mind wandering during reading and comprehension outcomes. This effect is particularly pronounced for central ideas and inferences, where task-unrelated thoughts hinder the integration of elements. Mind wandering can confer benefits in certain learning contexts, such as enhanced statistical and implicit learning, where off-task thoughts facilitate the detection of underlying patterns without focused . A 2025 study demonstrated that participants exhibiting higher mind wandering during a statistical learning task showed improved extraction of probabilistic regularities, suggesting an adaptive role in predictive processing. Similarly, future-oriented mind wandering supports by aiding the formation and retrieval of intentions for future actions, as internal drifts to personal plans strengthen cues for delayed tasks. During the study phase, mind wandering impairs long-term retention of encoded material by weakening the consolidation of declarative information into stable . Systematic reviews confirm that this disruption affects item and source accuracy, with off-task episodes reducing the depth of and subsequent recall. However, mind wandering aids incubation in problem-solving by allowing unconscious reorganization of ideas during breaks from deliberate effort, leading to higher rates of insightful solutions upon return to the task.

Affective and Well-being Effects

Emotional Valence

Experience sampling studies (ESM) reveal that the emotional valence of mind-wandering episodes varies, with thoughts often classified as positive, neutral, or negative. In one comparative analysis, unrestricted mind wandering yielded approximately 36% pleasant thoughts, 43% unpleasant thoughts, and the remainder neutral, indicating a slight tilt toward negative valence overall. These patterns suggest that while mind wandering encompasses a broad emotional spectrum, neutral and positive content predominates in less constrained contexts, comprising roughly 40-50% combined in similar ESM assessments. Future-oriented mind wandering tends to exhibit more positive valence compared to past- or present-focused episodes. ESM and experimental data consistently show that thoughts directed toward the future are less negative and more likely to be neutral or positive, potentially reflecting adaptive functions. For instance, future simulations during mind wandering are associated with higher positivity ratings across both daily sampling and laboratory settings. The of mind wandering influences its emotional tone, with deliberate episodes more frequently linked to positive and spontaneous ones to negative worry. Intentional mind wandering, often volitionally directed toward goal-related future scenarios, correlates with constructive, uplifting content, whereas unintentional drifts are prone to ruminative or anxious themes involving past regrets or concerns. This distinction highlights how control over thought initiation modulates affective quality. In daily life, emotional valence shapes the and of mind-wandering episodes, with a self-referential aligning thoughts to prevailing mood states. A 2025 study using ESM over one week found that valence dimensions predict occurrence rates, such that positive moods foster more frequent future-oriented drifts, while negative moods amplify spontaneous, mood-congruent reflections. This dynamic underscores mind wandering's role in emotional continuity during routine activities. Cultural contexts modulate valence patterns in mind wandering, with Western samples emphasizing future positivity and Eastern ones showing tendencies toward calmer, less ruminative content. ESM in Chinese participants indicates higher rates of positive, relaxing thoughts compared to Western benchmarks, possibly due to cultural emphases on and low-arousal states over analytical future projection. In contrast, Western studies highlight a stronger prospective with optimistic valence.

Relation to Happiness and Mental Health

Research has identified a in the relationship between mind-wandering and : while frequent mind-wandering is associated with lower overall , episodes of positive mind-wandering can temporarily enhance momentary mood. In a seminal study using experience sampling, participants reported mind-wandering 46.9% of their waking hours, and such instances were linked to decreased regardless of the valence of the thoughts, with even pleasant mind-wandering failing to elevate mood above on-task levels. However, subsequent research has shown that high-interest or positive mind-wandering episodes are correlated with increases in positive affect relative to task-focused states, suggesting potential short-term affective benefits when content is engaging or uplifting. Mind-wandering is closely tied to , particularly through its role in rumination, which exacerbates symptoms of depression and anxiety. Individuals with exhibit elevated rates of negative, past-oriented mind-wandering, often manifesting as repetitive rumination that perpetuates dysphoric states and interferes with emotional . In anxiety disorders, spontaneous mind-wandering heightens vulnerability to cycles, contributing to sustained internalizing symptoms. Conversely, mindfulness-based interventions offer therapeutic potential by reducing mind-wandering frequency and disrupting ruminative patterns, thereby alleviating depressive rumination and promoting affective balance. Recent developments as of 2025 highlight intentional positive mind-wandering as a potential resilience factor against stress, with future-oriented positive thoughts linked to improved mood and psychological adjustment in low-mood contexts. In consumer psychology, mind-wandering has been connected to impulsive , where spontaneous thoughts during can trigger unplanned purchases by shifting focus from rational evaluation to immediate desires. Mind-wandering often serves as an escape from , a state characterized by low and dissatisfaction, yet it can paradoxically amplify discontent if the wandering leads to unfulfilled aspirations or neutral/unpleasant reflections. In low- environments, this dynamic underscores mind-wandering's in temporarily alleviating tedium while potentially reinforcing a of unmet needs.

Individual Variations

Trait Differences

Individual differences in mind-wandering are closely linked to personality traits within the Big Five framework. Higher levels of and , along with lower , are consistently associated with increased mind-wandering propensity. For instance, neuroticism positively predicts mind-wandering frequency, often through heightened emotional reactivity, while low conscientiousness reflects reduced task focus and self-discipline, facilitating drifts into unrelated thoughts. Cognitive traits also play a key role in predisposing individuals to mind-wandering. Poor , a core executive function, strongly predicts higher rates of spontaneous mind-wandering, as it impairs the ability to sustain focus on external tasks. Conversely, higher trait —characterized by present-moment awareness and non-judgmental attention—shows an inverse relationship with mind-wandering, acting as a buffer against attentional lapses. Demographic factors contribute to stable variations in mind-wandering. Rates peak during young adulthood, with younger individuals reporting more frequent episodes compared to older adults, where mind-wandering declines due to shifts in cognitive priorities and emotional regulation. Regarding , women exhibit a slight toward rumination-based mind-wandering, a repetitive form of negative self-focused thought, which is more prevalent in females across studies.

Situational Influences

Mind wandering is significantly influenced by the demands of the current task, with rates typically higher during undemanding or routine activities that fail to fully engage cognitive resources. For instance, during simulated on familiar routes, individuals report mind wandering for up to 70% of the time, as the low perceptual and allows attention to drift toward internal thoughts. This pattern aligns with resource theories positing that mind wandering emerges when task demands are insufficient to occupy capacity. The relationship between task difficulty and mind wandering follows a curvilinear , peaking at both low and high levels of demand while reaching a minimum at moderate difficulty. At low difficulty, under-engagement permits decoupling from the task; at high difficulty, overload may deplete executive resources, fostering spontaneous decoupling. Empirical studies using tasks like reading or confirm this U-shaped curve, with mind wandering minimized when difficulty optimally balances engagement and capacity. Environmental cues such as and reliably elevate mind wandering by signaling a need for cognitive exploration or disengagement from monotonous stimuli. Boredom, arising from prolonged understimulation, prompts mind wandering as an adaptive response to seek novel internal content when external change is unavailable. Similarly, cognitive fatigue from sustained effort reduces , increasing the likelihood of task-unrelated thoughts. Diurnal variations further modulate mind wandering, with rates peaking during afternoon lulls around 2-4 PM, coinciding with natural dips in . Experience sampling studies reveal these fluctuations, attributing higher afternoon mind wandering to accumulated and reduced vigilance in educational or work settings. This ties to circadian rhythms, where fluctuations influence attentional stability; lower signaling in the afternoon may weaken inhibition of task-unrelated thoughts, exacerbating mind wandering. In contexts, mind wandering surges during metacognitive gaps, such as phases of low monitoring or planning in study sessions, where lapses in allow to decouple from learning goals. A 2025 of 134 studies highlights this, noting that mind wandering disrupts self-regulation most acutely when meta- is absent, leading to inefficiencies in knowledge construction.

Applications and Interventions

Educational and Productivity Contexts

In classroom settings, particularly among children in primary and secondary school, frequent mind-wandering often manifests as behaviors such as looking out the window during lessons, indicating daydreaming or inattention. Common causes include boredom or lack of engagement with the lesson material, fatigue from insufficient sleep, anxiety or stress, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning difficulties (e.g., not understanding the material or mismatched learning style), and external distractions or environmental factors. Occasional daydreaming is normal, especially if the child is tired or bored, but frequent occurrences may warrant evaluation for underlying issues such as ADHD, anxiety, or related challenges. In educational settings, mind-wandering often impairs comprehension during lectures, as attention shifts away from the material lead to reduced retention of key information. A of studies on task-unrelated thought during reading and tasks found a moderate negative (r = -0.21) between mind-wandering frequency and comprehension outcomes, highlighting its detrimental effect on processing lecture content. However, mind-wandering can also support in academic contexts, such as when students disengage from rote tasks to incubate ideas. For instance, research demonstrates that brief periods of low-demand activity promoting mind-wandering enhance performance on problems, suggesting benefits for innovative learning approaches. Recent mappings of mind-wandering to (SRL) processes further illustrate its dual role in , particularly during phases. A 2025 systematic review integrated mind-wandering with SRL frameworks, revealing that unintentional mind-wandering in the forethought stage—such as goal-setting and —can result in misconceptions or poorly defined objectives, disrupting effective study . Conversely, intentional mind-wandering during this phase may facilitate reflective goal adjustment, aiding adaptive SRL if metacognitive awareness intervenes to redirect focus. Regarding reading and retention in academic environments, mind-wandering specifically hinders the encoding of central text ideas, leading to poorer immediate and consolidation. Experimental evidence shows that higher rates of task-unrelated thought during reading sessions correlate with decreased recognition of core concepts, underscoring its interference with academic retention. To mitigate this, techniques like active —retrieving information from without cues—engage deeper processing and reduce mind-wandering by maintaining attentional demands, thereby improving comprehension and retention in study sessions. In productivity contexts, mind-wandering imposes significant costs on routine tasks, where drifts during repetitive activities like checking, resulting in errors and extended completion times. Studies indicate that task-unrelated thoughts occupy up to 47% of on average, including during work, negatively impacting performance metrics such as task accuracy and efficiency in professional settings. Yet, it offers benefits through incubation periods that foster , as disengagement from demanding work allows unconscious processing of complex problems. This aligns with findings that mind-wandering during low-stakes breaks enhances subsequent creative output in workplace tasks. Workplace examples highlight how environmental factors exacerbate mind-wandering, particularly in remote settings with low , where isolation and reduced external cues increase its occurrence. Research on platforms shows elevated mind-wandering rates due to diminished real-time oversight, leading to greater disengagement during virtual tasks. Additionally, subtle behaviors like link to sustained focus by providing sensory input that counters mind-wandering, helping maintain during prolonged office work without overt disruption.

Strategies for Management

Mindfulness training has emerged as an evidence-based approach to reduce spontaneous mind-wandering, particularly through practices like that enhance meta-awareness and regulation. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials indicate that -based interventions significantly decrease mind-wandering across various cognitive tasks, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate in subdomains related to sustained . For instance, brief meditation training emphasizing acceptance has been shown to reduce behavioral markers of mind-wandering by improving discrimination accuracy on sustained tasks. Digital applications such as Headspace facilitate accessible delivery of these practices; studies demonstrate that 10-20 minutes of daily app-guided over 2-4 weeks leads to significant reductions in mind-wandering and improvements in focus. These interventions are particularly effective for curbing maladaptive mind-wandering while preserving its potential benefits for reflection. Cognitive interventions offer practical methods to manage mind-wandering by structuring and harnessing deliberate episodes for positive outcomes. Goal-setting techniques, such as setting specific, proximal goals during tasks, have been found to reduce mind-wandering rates and attenuate vigilance decrements in sustained paradigms. Incorporating scheduled breaks can further leverage deliberate mind-wandering to enhance , as incubation periods of unfocused thought during these intervals predict improvements in performance. These strategies promote intentional shifts in , minimizing unproductive lapses while allowing controlled mind-wandering to support generation. Environmental adjustments can boost task and refocus , thereby mitigating mind-wandering. Fidget tools, such as spinners or cubes, help regulate and reduce wandering thoughts by channeling excess , leading to improved concentration in settings prone to . elements, like points or rewards in learning platforms, deactivate the associated with mind-wandering, fostering sustained without increasing . Recent studies highlight the role of subtle cues, such as visual prompts or ambient changes, in facilitating rapid refocus during routine activities. Therapeutic approaches target maladaptive mind-wandering linked to emotional distress. (CBT) effectively reduces rumination—a form of perseverative mind-wandering—in anxiety disorders by challenging negative thought patterns, with meta-analyses confirming moderate to large effect sizes on repetitive negative thinking. using EEG provides real-time control over brain activity, enabling individuals to modulate oscillations and decrease mind-wandering episodes during tasks. These methods are integrated into clinical protocols to address underlying mechanisms, enhancing overall .

References

  1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17073528/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9497275/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5004739/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11142633/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23458547/
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595451/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3743222/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6721976_The_Restless_Mind
  9. https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/sites/labs.psych.ucsb.edu.schooler.jonathan/files/pubs/1-s2.0-s1364661311000878-main.pdf
  10. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192439
  11. https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/not-all-mind-wandering-is-created-equal.pdf
  12. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00485/full
  13. https://www.adambulley.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Future-thinking-in-animals-Redshaw-Bulley.pdf
  14. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.113
  15. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00056/full
  16. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147174
  17. https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.7.vii.html
  18. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin10.htm
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304638825_The_Interpretation_of_Daydreams_Reverie_as_Site_of_Conflict_in_Early_Victorian_Psychology
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7093713/
  21. https://www.verywellmind.com/behavioral-psychology-4157183
  22. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/10/the-cognitive-revolution/
  23. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-20202-006
  24. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900234106
  25. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%252Fa0026678
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09736-y
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3744871/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21071660/
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12703651/
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560/full
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9204482/
  32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-018-1073-0
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12373717/
  34. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976251349816
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922004918
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2010.02572.x
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030105111630014X
  38. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/acc613
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667174324001368
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920308971
  41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brb3.70764
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11048695/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10524518/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916001294
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4039623/
  46. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1140399/full
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5490683/
  48. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/4/395
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32594566/
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811925000217
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3909994/
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31502206/
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21353
  54. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1113455109
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7741077/
  56. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.25391
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50180-6
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5578971/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24674757/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9038971/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8527550/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850105/
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23458548/
  64. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cognition/articles/10.3389/fcogn.2025.1577053/full
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3328662/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10915650/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8674160/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9971160/
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362027340_The_relationship_between_mind_wandering_and_reading_comprehension_A_meta-analysis
  70. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12412
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224029304
  72. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-37996-z
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34085564/
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014976342100508X
  75. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2015.1088290
  76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01969-2
  77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.004
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946594/
  79. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044423
  80. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00583/full
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421005765
  82. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpp.2940
  83. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjdp.12561
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4217586/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8081844/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8435592/
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24486804/
  88. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11594-x
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10745276/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3786159/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5550411/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810018303520
  93. https://uh-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/03cea617-3a73-482f-96c3-75f1906c740e/download
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00209-6
  95. http://princeton.edu/~ndaw/amcd021.pdf
  96. https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-018-0141-4
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263347021_Chronotype_and_time-of-day_correlates_of_mind_wandering_and_related_phenomena
  98. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-025-10041-3
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3730052/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11103794/
  101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612446024
  102. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1449280
  103. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1618-3169/a000589
  104. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2022/12/20/youre-doing-something-thats-creating-work-stress-47-of-the-time/
  105. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1618-3169/a000599
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39011341/
  107. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.70056
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5329004/
  109. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41465-017-0020-9
  110. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-48575-205
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9388206/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4705349/
  113. https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/arcp.70000
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39916353/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6726311/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.