2 0 1 6 81 91 1, 2 3 Awareness of mind wandering by receiving external stimuli Sho OTSUKA Graduate School of Education, Tokyo Gakugei University Takahiro SEKIGUCHI Department of Educational Psychology, Tokyo Gakugei University This study examines how individuals become aware of mind wandering task-unrelated thoughts by focusing on the role of external stimuli as prompts. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in a sustained attention-to-response task. They were instructed to press a key whenever they found their minds wandering. Three types of critical trials occurred randomly: supraliminal-cue trials where a visible cue-stimulus red circle was presented for 300 ms at a fixation point, subliminal-cue trials where a cue stimulus white circle was presented for 10 ms at the fixation point, and control trials where no cue stimulus was presented. The results indicate that participants detected their mind wandering more often after the presentation of both supraliminal and subliminal cues than after control trials. Furthermore, Experiment 2, which used the probecaught method for measuring mind wandering, found that the probabilities of mind wandering occurrences did not differ among the supraliminal, subliminal and control cue conditions. These findings suggest that abrupt external stimuli trigger awareness of mind wandering irrespective of awareness for cue presentations. Key words: task-unrelated thoughts, meta-consciousness, subliminal stimulus 1 go/no-go 3 300 ms 10 ms 2 1 C, 24530911 2 112013 6 3 task-unrelated thought stimulus-independent thought mind wandering 2014; Smallwood & Schooler, 2006 30 50 Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010 81
Mooneyham & Schooler, 2013 Thomson, Seli, Besner, & Smilek, 2014 Smallwood, Baracaia, Lowe, & Obonsawin, 2003 Smallwood, McSpadden, & Schooler, 2008 Smallwood, 2013 proactive reactive Smallwood, 2010; Stawarczyk, Majerus, Catale, & D Argembeau, 2014 Smallwood, Fishman, & Schooler, 2007 meta-consciousnessschooler, 2002; Smallwood, 2013; Smallwood, McSpadden, & Schooler, 2007 Chin & Schooler, 2009 Schooler, Smallwood, Christoff, Handy, Reichle, & Sayette, 2011 Schooler, 2002 Schooler et al. 2011 sustained attention to response task, SART; Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997 Go/no-Go Moonyham & Schooler, 2013 SART self-caught method; Hasenkanp, Wilson- Mendenhall, Duncuan, & Barsalou, 2012; Mrazek, Franklin, Philips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013; Reichle, Reineberg, & Schooler, 2010; Sayette, Reichle, & Schooler, 2009; Sayette, Schooler, & Reichle, 2010 SART Bernat, Shevrin, & Snodgrass 2001 visual oddball task event-related brain potential P300 P300 ventral attention network, VAN; Vossel, Geng, & Fink, 2014 Horovitz, Skudlarski, & Gore, 2002; Mantini, Corbetta, Cugini, Romani, & Gratta, 2007, VAN default mode network, DMN; Mason, Norton, VanHorn, Wegner, Grafton, & Macrae, 2007 anti-correlationkucyi, Hodaie, & Davis, 2012 VAN DMN 82
Ivanoff & Klein 2003 meta-contrast masking procedure 1 15 ms 15 ms 1.4 Ivanoff & Klein 2003 inhibition of return; Klein, 2000 SART 1 2 Smallwood & Schooler, 2006 1 44 4 3022.2SD 1.34 300 IBM NetVista M42 Slim 16 CRT SONY CPD-E200 100 Hz 1,024 768 pixels E-Prime ver. 1.1 CRT 57 cm SART C 1.0 1.0 530 ms 1.4 4.5 30 ms 500 ms A Z, 1.0 1.0 2Figure 1A SART 1,1229 0.8 1,122 72 6.4 3 24 Figure 1B 220 ms 1 300 ms 4 G*Power ver. 3.0 1997 Brooks & Johanson, 2011 83
Figure 1. Examples of normal/no cue trial A, supraliminal cue trial B, and subliminal cue trial C and their time sequence in Experiments 1 and 2. Figure 2. An example of arrangement of the critical trials in SART in Experiment 1. 4.5 10 ms Figure 1C510 ms 1 10 ms 4.5 10 ms Ivanoff & Klein, 2003 Figure 1A 3SART 12 17 Figure 2 1 4SART SART Smallwood et al. 2007 C SART 1 374 SART 2 2 SART 84
17.7SD 17.4 2 2SD 7270 40 SART 3 Reichle et al. 2010 1 6 Figure 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 Figure 4 1 F 2, 78 4.36, MSe 1.09, p.016, η 2 p.10 Shaffer p p.002, d 0.56 5 p.051, d 0.31 p.61, d 0.08 SART response time coefficient of variability, RTCV: Hu, He, & Xu, 2012; Mrazek, Smallwood, & Schooler, 2012 RTCV 1 4 4RTCV Figure 3. Mean numbers of mind wandering reports in each of the first to sixth trial after the critical trial in Experiment 1. The error bars indicate the standard errors of the means. Figure 4. Mean number of mind wandering reports in each of the three types of cue condition in Experiment 1. The error bars indicate the standard errors of the means. 85
r 38.34, p.03, 95 CI.03.59 RTCV 4 RTCV RTCV 0.12 SD 0.03 0.12 SD 0.03 0.13 SD 0.04 1 F 2, 78 0.14, MSe 0.0004, p.87, η p 2.004 RTCV RTCV RTCV η 2 p.004 probe-caught method; Smallwood & Schooler, 2006 2 2 2 1 Christoff, Gordon, Smallwood, Smith, & Schooler, 2009; Smallwood et al., 2008 1 1 120 1222.6SD 1.28 1 86
Forster & Lavie 2014 n 14 20 1 1 2 3 Figure 5. Mean number of mind wandering reported on the thought probes presented after each of the three types of the critical trial in Experiment 2. The error bars 1 2 1 1 indicate the standard errors of the means. 2 SART Figure 5 1 F 2, 32 0.79, MSe 2.42, p.467, η 2 p.047 2412 0123 d 0.20 1 d 0.07 1 4 2 4 d 0.34 Figures 3, 4 1 1 3 2 1 3 12 59 SART 3 3 n 17 2 1 d 0.07 1 d 0.52 87
2 1 1 1SART 2 Schooler, 2002 Ivanoff & Klein 2003 attentional capture Egeth & Yantis, 1997; Lavie, 1995 VAN Vossel et al., 2014 VAN temporoparietal junction anterior meddle frontal gyrus Kim, 2014 VAN VAN Bernat et al. 2001 P300 P300 P300 Brázdil, Recktor, Dufek, Jurák, & Daniel, 1998 P300supramarginal gyrus VAN Horovitz et al., 2002; Mantini et al., 2007 P300 VAN VAN DMN Andrews-Hanna, Reidler, Huang, & Buckner, 2010 DMN medial prefrontal cortexposterior cingulate cortexinferior parietal lobule 88
Hasenkamp, Wilson- Mendenhall, Duncan, & Barsalou, 2012; Mason et al., 2007 VAN VAN DMN Kucyi et al., 2012 VAN DMN DMN Schooler et al., 2011 1 Mooneyham & Schooler, 2013 Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Reidler, J. S., Huang, C., & Buckner, R. L. 2010. Evidence for the default network's role in spontaneous cognition. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104, 322 335. Bernat, E., Shevrin, H., & Snodgrass, M. 2001. Subliminal visual oddball stimuli evoked a P300 component. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 159 171. Brázdil, M., Rektor, I., Dufek, M., Jurák, P., & Daniel, P. 1998. Effect of subthreshold target stimuli on event-related potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 107, 64 68. Brooks, G. P., & Johanson, G. A. 2011. Sample size considerations for multiple comparison procedures in ANOVA. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 10, 97 109. Chin, J. M., & Schooler, J. M. 2009. Metaawareness. Encyclopedia of Consciousness, 2, 33 41. Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. 2009. Experience sampling during fmri reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 8719 8724. Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. 1997. Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269 297. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. 2014 Distracted by your mind?: Individual differences in distractibility predict mind wandering. Journal of Experimen- 89
tal Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 40, 251 260. Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Duncan, E., & Barsalou, L. W. 2012. Mind wandering and attention during focused meditation: A fine-grained temporal analysis of fluctuating cognitive states. NeuroImage, 59, 750 760. Horovitz, S. G., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. 2002. Correlations and dissociations between BOLD signal and P300 amplitude in an auditory oddball task: A parametric approach to combining fmri and ERP. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 20, 319 325. Hu, N., He, S., & Xu, B. 2012. Different efficiencies of attentional orienting in different wandering minds. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 139 148. Ivanoff, J., & Klein, R. M. 2003. Orienting of attention without awareness is affected by measurement-induced attentional control settings. Journal of Vision, 3, 32 40. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. 2010. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330, 932. Kim, H. 2014. Involvement of the dorsal and ventral attention networks in oddball stimulus processing: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 2265 2284. Klein, R. 2000. Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138 147. Kucyi, A., Hodaie, M., & Davis, K. D. 2012. Lateralization in intrinsic functional connectivity of the temporoparietal junction with salienceand attention-related brain networks. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108, 3382 3392. Lavie, N. 1995. Perceotual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451 468. Mantini, D., Corbetta, M., Cugini, S., Romani, G. L., & Gratta, C. D. 2007. Modulation of ventral and dorsal attention networks during target detection: An EEG/fMRI study. International Journal of Bioelectromagnetism, 9, 220 222. Mason, F. M., Norton, M. I., VanHorn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. 2007. Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought. Science, 315, 393 395. Mooneyham, B. W., & Schooler, J. W. 2013. The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: A review. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 67, 11 18. Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. 2013. Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24, 776 781. Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2012. Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12, 442 448. 1997. Nagata, N., & Yoshida, M. Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E., & Schooler, J. W. 2010. Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science, 21, 1300 1310. Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. 1997. Oops! : Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747 758. Sayette, M. A., Reichle, E. D., & Schooler, J. W. 2009. Lost in the sauce: The effects of alcohol on mind wandering. Psychological Science, 20, 747 752. Sayette, M. A., Schooler, J. W., & Reichle, E. D. 2010. Out for smoke: The impact of cigarette craving on zoning-out during reading. Psychological Science, 21, 26 30. Schooler, J. W. 2002. Re-representing consciousness: Dissociations between experience and meta- consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 339 344. Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. 2011. Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Cognitive Sciences, 15, 319 326. 2014. pp. 79 94. Sekiguchi, T. Smallwood, J. 2010. Why the global availability of mind wandering necessitates resource competition: Reply to McVay and Kane 2010. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 202 207. Smallwood, J. 2013. Distinguishing how from why the mind wanders: A process-occurrence 90
framework for self-generated mental activity. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 519 535. Smallwood, J., Baracaia, S. F., Lowe, M., & Obonsawin, M. C. 2003. Task-unrelated-thought whilist encoding information. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 452 484. Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. 2007. Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 230 236. Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. 2007. The lights are on but no one s home: Meta-awareness and the decoupling of attention when the mind wanders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 527 533. Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. 2008. When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1144 1150. Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2006. The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946 958. Stawarczyk, D., Majerus, S., Catale, C., & D Argembeau, A. 2014. Relationship between mind-wandering and attentional control abilities in young adults and adolescents. Acta Psychologica, 148, 25 36. Thomson, D. R., Seli, P., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. 2014. On the link between mind wandering and task performance over time. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 14 26. Vossel, S., Geng, J. J., & Fink, G. R. 2014. Dorsal and ventral attention systems: Distinct neural circuits but collaborative roles. The Neuroscientist, 20, 150 159. 2015 5 152016 1 18 91