Cited by 76Mind wandering and attentionCognitive Functions and MemoryHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

In pursuit of off-task thought: mind wandering-performance trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming

Open access
Thomson, David R., Besner, Derek, Smilek, Daniel·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The present study investigated whether the frequency of probe-caught mind wandering varied by condition and had any impact on performance in both an item-by-item reading aloud task and a blocked version of the classic Stroop task. Across both experiments, mind wandering rates were found to be quite high and were negatively associated with vocal onset latencies and error rates across conditions. Despite this however, we observed poor correspondence between the effects of task demands on mind wandering rates and the effects of mind wandering on primary task performance. We discuss these findings in relation to attentional resource accounts of mind wandering and suggest that individuals can adjust the relative distribution of executive/attentional resources between internal and external goals in a way that maximizes off-task thought while preserving primary task performance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Able-bodied speakers have a 1-2% word error rate when reading a paragraph aloud.

    “and able-bodied speakers have a 1-2% word error rate 29 when reading a paragraph aloud.”

    From An Accurate and Rapidly Calibrating Speech Neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    Experiment 1 Results report error rates of 0.9% for high-frequency words and 1.7% for low-frequency words, close to the claimed 1–2%. But the Procedure says participants read one letter string at a time, not a paragraph, and the paper describes the participants as undergraduates rather than establishing an error rate for able-bodied speakers generally. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Posner M. I. Snyder C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals, in Attention and Performance V, eds Rabbit P. M. A. Dornic S. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 669– 682

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Thomson, David R.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
360-360
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120007541
Cited by
76
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
mind wandering, off-task thought, reading aloud, color naming, Stroop task, attention allocation, executive function, task performance, error rate

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