Cited by 59Mind wandering and attentionNarrative Theory and AnalysisEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Reconsidering the Mind-Wandering Reader: Predictive Processing, Probability Designs, and Enculturation

Open access
Fabry, Regina E., Kukkonen, Karin·2019·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Studies on mind-wandering frequently use reading as an experimental task. In these studies, reading is conceived as a cognitive process that potentially offers a contrast to mind-wandering, because it seems to be task-related, goal-directed and stimulus-dependent. More recent work attempts to avoid the dichotomy of successful cognitive processes and processes of mind-wandering found in earlier studies. We approach the issue from the perspective that texts provoke modes of cognitive involvement different from the information processing and recall account that underlies many early mind-wandering studies. After all, reading itself is an umbrella term for activities that are characterized by a variety of phenomenological and functional signatures. We conceptualize reading and mind-wandering in relation to each other through the framework of enculturated predictive processing, which is informed by research in literary studies. Earlier accounts think of reading predominantly in terms of the construction of situation models that organize textual information. By contrast, enculturated predictive processing foregrounds shifting stances readers can take in relation to the text. Characters featuring in literary texts might be mind-wandering themselves, or passages in literary style might make the construction of a clearly defined situational model impossible. Furthermore, we take into account that texts often elicit mind-wandering through the construction of task-relevant and attention-driven virtual scenarios in readers' minds. This more complex account of reading can enrich recent attempts to understand mind-wandering as a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. The study of mind-wandering can benefit, we argue, from a closer attention to the process of reading and to the texts it deploys as stimuli. The emerging perspective from enculturated predictive processing and literary studies makes distinctions in reading that in turn enable research on mind-wandering to ask more precise questions about (1) different kinds of mind-wandering, (2) different modes of reading, and (3) how and where they interconnect across time.

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.2018.02648

Cites

127 of 127 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?

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

1 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Austen J. (2008). Sense and Sensibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Henrich J. P. (2016). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, And Making us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. Johnson-Laird P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. McNamara D. S. Magliano J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension, in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed Ross B (Burlington: Academic Press), 51, 297– 384.
  5. Schooler J. W. Reichle E. D. Halpern D. V. (2004). Zoning out while reading, in Thinking and Seeing: Visual Metacognition in Adults and Children, ed Levin D. T (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 203– 226.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fabry, R. E., & Kukkonen, K.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Kukkonen, Karin
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2019-01-08
Volume
9
Pages
2648-2648
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910071476
Cited by
59
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 17
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universitetet i Oslo
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
mind wandering, reading, predictive processing, situation model, virtual scenarios, literary style, attention

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