The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts
Open accessAbstract
Many prior theories have tried to explain the relationship between attentional processes and mind wandering. The resource-demand matching view argues that a mismatch between task demands and resources led to more mind wandering. This study aims to test this view against competing models by inducing mind wandering through increasing the level of demands via adding a prospective memory task to cognitively demanding tasks like reading. We hypothesized that participants with a second task still in mind (unfinished group) engage more in task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) and show less text comprehension compared to participants who think a second task is finished (finished group). Seventy-two participants had to study 24 items of a to-do list for a recall test. After a first cued recall of ten items, participants were either told that a second task was finished or that the recall was interrupted and continued later. All participants then started reading an easy or difficult version of the same unfamiliar hypertext, while being thought probed. Text comprehension measures followed. As expected, participants in the unfinished group showed significantly more TUTs than participants in the finished group when reading difficult texts, but, contrary to our assumptions, did not show better text comprehension measures when reading difficult text. Nevertheless, participants compensate for the influence of the second task by reading longer, which in turn has a positive effect on their reading knowledge. These findings support the resource-demand-matching model and thus strengthen assumptions about the processing of attention during reading.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This study tested the resource-demand-matching view by adding a prospective memory task to online reading of easy versus difficult hypertexts. The unfinished prospective memory group reported more task-unrelated thoughts than the finished group only when reading difficult texts, but the predicted interaction on reading comprehension did not appear.
Key findings
- Overall task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) were higher in the unfinished group (33.9%) than the finished group (25.8%), with significant main effects of PM task group, \(F(1,67)=5.457, p=.022, \eta^2=.075\), and text difficulty, \(F(1,67)=7.971, p=.006, \eta^2=.106\); Bayesian evidence was strong for both, \(BF_{10}=14.33\).
- For the TUT category “current state of being,” the PM task × text difficulty interaction was significant, \(F(1,67)=5.841, p=.018, \eta^2=.080, BF_{10}=3.08\). In difficult texts, the unfinished group showed more TUTs (\(M=.35, SD=.12\)) than the finished group (\(M=.16, SD=.15\)), \(t(34)=-5.073, p=.000, BF_{10}=116.61\); in easy texts, the difference was not significant.
- Reading comprehension was better in the finished group (\(M=7.72, SD=1.58\)) than the unfinished group (\(M=6.78, SD=1.53\)), \(F(1,67)=6.409, p=.014, \eta^2=.087\), but there was no significant main effect of text difficulty and no significant interaction.
- Recall performance was better in the first recall phase (\(M=6.03, SD=1.94\)) than the second (\(M=4.28, SD=1.78\)), \(F(1,70)=77.156, p=.000, \eta^2=.524\), with no significant PM group main effect or interaction. Reading time correlated positively with reading comprehension, \(r=.238, p=.044\).
Methods
- Seventy-two German native-speaking students (49 female; mean age 23.86 years, \(SD=3.29\)) were pseudorandomly assigned to finished (\(n=36\)) and unfinished (\(n=36\)) PM task groups.
- Participants studied 24 to-do list items, recalled 10, were told the recall was either finished or would continue later, then read a high-cohesion (easy) or low-cohesion (difficult) hypertext about copyright law while thought-probed; they completed reading comprehension, text memory, second recall, and WMC (Ospan/Rspan) measures.
- Analyses used ANCOVAs, ANOVAs, and paired t-tests with WMC as a covariate, plus Bayesian model-selection/Bayes factors; alpha was .05.
Limitations
- The paper states power/sample-size concerns: the study had \(N=72\) and expected power of .82 for the ANCOVA, but a sample of \(N=210\) would be required for 95% power assuming a medium effect size \(f=.25\) (and 1,302 for a small effect), so findings need caution and replication.
- The paper also states that interest and motivation were not controlled, and that the correlational findings—including the reading-time–comprehension correlation—were weak/anecdotal and not the main design focus.
- The text makes evident that the predicted interaction on reading comprehension was not found, the interaction on mind wandering appeared only for the “current state of being” category, and reading time was not associated with variation in mind wandering; the easy/difficult text versions had similar Flesch Reading Ease scores (35 vs. 38).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 23 Not checked · 61 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, participants in the unfinished group showed significantly more TUTs than participants in the finished group when reading difficult texts”
- Also stated in: § First analysis: Mind wandering · plain
“For the difficult text condition the analysis showed significantly more TUTs for participants in the unfinished (M = .35,SD = .12)than in the finished group (M = .16,SD = .15;t(34) = -5.073,p = .000;see Fig. 1).”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § First analysis: Mind wandering · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first recall phase, the performance was identical between the two groups (unfinished, finished) as expected”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Reading comprehension and recall performances
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, our results were significant only with respect to the mind-wandering category”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Mind wandering
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Looking at the mind wandering category”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > First analysis: Mind wandering
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the total amount of mind-wandering rates, we found significant main effects for PM task group (F(1,67) = 5.457, p = .022,η 2 = .075),and text difficulty (F(1,67) = 7.971, p = .006,η 2 = .106),with strong evidence (BF 10 = 14.33) for both effects also in the Bayesian analysis.”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > First analysis: Mind wandering
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
39 more claims
Create a free account to see all 85 claims and to verify the 29 references still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 5.457reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022
“F(1,67) = 5.457, p = .022”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 7.971reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(1,67) = 7.971, p = .006”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 16.933reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,67) = 16.933,p = .000”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 16.059reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,67) = 16.059,p = .000”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 5.841reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .018
“F(1,67) = 5.841, p = .018”
5 more recomputed tests
Create a free account to see every test the Stats check recomputed.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Limitations
“For example, the calculated power in the cited studies ranges from .52 to .90 (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011;Rummel et al., 2017;Scullin et al., 2018;Steindorf & Rummel, 2017).”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Limitations
“In more detail, a power of values between .63 and .95 was expected in the study by Rummel et al. (2017, Experiments 1-3)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > First analysis: Mind wandering
“Participants in the unfinished group showed significantly more TUTs concerning the current state of being (M = .259,SD = .114)than the finished group of participants (M = .140,SD = .132;see Table 2).”
§ Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts > Conclusion
“| Current state of being | .20 (.14) | .26 (.14) | .14 (.13) |”
Citations
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Cohen, J. (1992) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · Cited by 5,870
Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.5.363 · Cited by 5,298
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211 · Cited by 3,498
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067
Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course
Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139087759 · Cited by 1,795
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 · Cited by 1,341
Brysbaert, M. (2019) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.72 · Cited by 996
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0014104 · Cited by 769
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
Schurer, T., Opitz, B., & Schubert, T. (2023) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103836 · Cited by 28
Self-citationBühler, B., Fütterer, T., von Keyserlingk, L., Bozkir, E., Kasneci, E., Gerjets, P. H., & Trautwein, U. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10041-3 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Schurer, T., Opitz, B., & Schubert, T.
- Affiliations
- Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
- University of Surrey (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Schurer, Teresa
- Schubert, Torsten
- Venue
- Memory & Cognition
- Published
- 2022-03-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 221-233
- ISSN
- 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5946
- OpenAlex
- W4214693984
- Semantic Scholar
- 2290b781e7efcc3ed78e5d16b3d702e77665c169
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (vor)
- Locations
- Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- mind wandering, prospective memory, task-unrelated thoughts, dual-task interference, online reading, text comprehension, hypertext reading, attentional control
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Reading, Mental Recall, Comprehension, Memory, Episodic
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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: Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3758/s13421-022-01295-1
- The paper
- Schurer, T., Opitz, B., & Schubert, T. (2023). Concurrent prospective memory task increases mind wandering during online reading for difficult but not easy texts. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01295-1
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.
