The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Drifting from slow to “d'oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors.
Open accessAbstract
A combined experimental, individual-differences, and thought-sampling study tested the predictions of executive attention (e.g., Engle & Kane, 2004) and coordinative binding (e.g., Oberauer, Süβ, Wilhelm, & Sander, 2007) theories of working memory capacity (WMC). We assessed 288 subjects' WMC and their performance and mind-wandering rates during a sustained-attention task; subjects completed either a go/no-go version requiring executive control over habit or a vigilance version that did not. We further combined the data with those from McVay and Kane (2009) to (1) gauge the contributions of WMC and attentional lapses to the worst performance rule and the tail, or τ parameter, of reaction time (RT) distributions; (2) assess which parameters from a quantitative evidence-accumulation RT model were predicted by WMC and mind-wandering reports; and (3) consider intrasubject RT patterns--particularly, speeding--as potential objective markers of mind wandering. We found that WMC predicted action and thought control in only some conditions, that attentional lapses (indicated by task-unrelated-thought reports and drift-rate variability in evidence accumulation) contributed to τ, performance accuracy, and WMC's association with them and that mind-wandering experiences were not predicted by trial-to-trial RT changes, and so they cannot always be inferred from objective performance measures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 1×
“Such validity is not unexpected, given that these verbal reports describe contents of experiences rather than interpretations or explanations of those experiences (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Wilson, 2002).”
Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix
Steiger, J. H. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245 · Cited by 4,621 · cited 2×
“25), as indicated by Williams’s t test (Steiger, 1980).”
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Self-citationWandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought
Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1131295 · Cited by 2,792
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 · Cited by 1,725 · cited 3×
“Our idea was that WMC should predict goal neglect, especially in situations that put a premium on proactively maintaining goal access (Kane & Engle, 2003; see also Marcovitch, Boseovski, Knapp, & Kane, 2010).”
Self-citationModeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067 · Cited by 1,478
Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., Brewer, L. E., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325 · Cited by 1,297
Cited by
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614556681 · Cited by 460
Smallwood, J., & Andrews-Hanna, J. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00441 · Cited by 433
Mind-Wandering With and Without Intention
Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Smilek, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.010 · Cited by 451
Mrazek, M. D., Phillips, D. T., Franklin, M. S., Broadway, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560 · Cited by 400
Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0029669 · Cited by 335
Metadata
- Authors
- McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 525-549
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2109720649
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Drifting from slow to “d'oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0025896
- The paper
- McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Drifting from slow to “d'oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025896
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
