A resource-control account of sustained attention: evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms
Abstract
Staying attentive is challenging enough when carrying out everyday tasks, such as reading or sitting through a lecture, and failures to do so can be frustrating and inconvenient. However, such lapses may even be life threatening, for example, if a pilot fails to monitor an oil-pressure gauge or if a long-haul truck driver fails to notice a car in his or her blind spot. Here, we explore two explanations of sustained-attention lapses. By one account, task monotony leads to an increasing preoccupation with internal thought (i.e., mind wandering). By another, task demands result in the depletion of information-processing resources that are needed to perform the task. A review of the sustained-attention literature suggests that neither theory, on its own, adequately explains the full range of findings. We propose a novel framework to explain why attention lapses as a function of time-on-task by combining aspects of two different theories of mind wandering: attentional resource (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006) and control failure (McVay & Kane, 2010). We then use our “resource-control” theory to explain performance decrements in sustained-attention tasks. We end by making some explicit predictions regarding mind wandering in general and sustained-attention performance in particular.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Guided search is more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses with increasing time on task, number of simultaneous tasks, and operator's mental and physical fatigue.
“Guided search is also more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses, which tend to occur with increasing time on task, the number of simultaneous tasks, and the operator's mental and physical fatigue [9 , 13-18] .”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later
Hart, S. G. (2006) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120605000909 · Cited by 4,297 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…these tasks, ratings of mental workload and stress were obtained with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Task Load Index (NASA–TLX; see Hart, 2006; Hart & Staveland, 1988) and the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ; Matthews et al., 1999), respectively.1 Critically, similarly…”
MethodSmallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067 · see citing works
An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance
Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12003196 · Cited by 1,381 · see citing works
Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind
Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006 · Cited by 917 · see citing works
The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612456044 · Cited by 909 · see citing works
Self-citationSmallwood, J. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030010 · Cited by 564 · see citing works
Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1814 · Cited by 445 · see citing works
Stimulus-independent thought depends on central executive resources
Teasdale, J. D., Dritschel, B. H., Taylor, M. J., Proctor, L., Lloyd, C. A., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Baddeley, A. D. (1995) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197257 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mind wandering perspective on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bozhilova, N. S., Michelini, G., Kuntsi, J., & Asherson, P. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.010 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Cásedas, L., Pirruccio, V., Vadillo, M. A., & Lupiáñez, J. (2020) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01279-4 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Kettwich, C., Schrank, A., & Oehl, M. (2021) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti5050026 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Comparison of rest‐break interventions during a mentally demanding task
Blasche, G., Szabo, B., Wagner‐Menghin, M., Ekmekcioglu, C., & Gollner, E. (2018) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.2830 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Ju, Y.-J., & Lien, Y.-W. (2018) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2018.06.006 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-96
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2127028540
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 10
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- sustained attention, attentional lapses, mind wandering, time on task, performance decrement
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Models, Psychological
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
