![]() ![]() In low load blocks non-target letters in the central ring were small Os, allowing the target to be easily distinguished. Trials varied on 2 dimensions, perceptual load (low, high) and distractor (congruent, incongruent), and occurred in blocks of 48 trials of a single load condition. Participants indicated target identity by key press as quickly and accurately as possible. We then asked whether participants with greater WMC mind wandered more in these WM-undemanding contexts, as predicted only by theory that WM can support TUT.įor each trial a central ring of six letters containing the target-either X or N-was presented for 100 ms with a peripheral distractor-either X or N-to the left or right. ![]() We used a visual search task (50% incongruent targets) in experiment 1 and a task of tapping in time with normal breathing (100% targets) in experiment 2. Therefore, to evaluate the two competing models of TUT, we gave participants from a range of WMCs WM-undemanding tasks permissive to mind wandering. Such WM-undemanding contexts are well suited for exploring whether greater WM resources, when free, support greater TUT. ![]() In contrast, tasks with a high frequency of trials that refresh task goals (50% or 100%) relieve WM from proactively maintaining task goals ( Kane & Engle, 2003). Thus, the SART places demands on WM resources which otherwise might have facilitated TUT. The SART’s low frequency of trials that refresh task goals (11% no-go trials in McVay & Kane, 2009) encourages using WM resources to proactively maintain no-go-relevant task goals in order to overcome the habitual go response reinforced by ~90% of trials. However, to conclude that WM solely inhibits TUT is premature. This evidence that WM may inhibit mind wandering seemingly contradicts any role for WM in maintaining TUT. A recent laboratory study indicated that individuals who possess greater WM resources report less TUT during a go/no-go task commonly used to study mind wandering (the Sustained Attention to Response Task or SART, McVay & Kane, 2009). Perhaps the strongest evidence for the theory comes from studies of individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC). This theory can likewise explain why TUT decreases during WM-demanding tasks, as good task performance requires WM to unfailingly restrict attention from TUT. According to this view, TUT spontaneously occurs and persists in a resource-free manner, and only enters awareness when WM fails to restrict attention to a task ( McVay & Kane, 2009, 2010). Further, when TUT does occur during tasks relying on WM, performance can decline ( Smallwood et al., 2004 Cheyne, Solman, Carriere, & Smilek, 2009), suggesting that maintaining TUT may divert cognitive resources needed for tasks ( Smallwood, Beach, Schooler, & Handy, 2008 Teasdale et al., 1995).Īn alternative perspective suggests TUT does not require WM resources. Conversely, TUT decreases when WM resources are scarce, such as during WM-demanding tasks ( Teasdale et al., 1995). The theory rests on findings that TUT increases when WM resources are available, such as during WM-undemanding tasks ( Teasdale et al., 1993, Mason et al., 2007). According to this view, a fragment of TUT can spontaneously occur but requires WM resources to elaborate into a train of TUT ( Teasdale, Proctor, Lloyd, & Baddeley, 1993 Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). One perspective suggests TUT requires WM resources to persist. The tension between the spontaneous and goal-directed features of TUT has stimulated debate of whether mind wandering consumes WM resources. Indeed, priority-driven attention that maintains and manipulates information not present is classically considered to require working memory (WM) resources ( Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), and WM-related brain areas are active during TUT ( Christoff, Gordon, Smallwood, Smith, & Schooler, 2009 Stawarczyk, Majerus, Maquet, & D’Argembeau, 2011). Such task-unrelated thought (TUT) presents a paradox: while TUT’s spontaneous nature suggests it is a resource-free process, TUT’s priority-driven nature suggests it is a resource-intensive process ( Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). The average mind wanders half of daily life, often thinking quite spontaneously about personal priorities unrelated to the task at hand ( Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010 Giambra, 1995 Klinger & Cox, 1987).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |