Objective markers of sustained attention fluctuate independently of mind-wandering reports.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Matthieu Chidharom, Anne Bonnefond, Edward K Vogel, Monica D Rosenberg
{"title":"Objective markers of sustained attention fluctuate independently of mind-wandering reports.","authors":"Matthieu Chidharom, Anne Bonnefond, Edward K Vogel, Monica D Rosenberg","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02640-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sustained attention fluctuates between periods of good and poor attentional performance. Two major methodologies exist to study these fluctuations: an objective approach that identifies \"in-the-zone\" states of consistent response times (RTs) and \"out-of-the-zone\" states of erratic RTs and a subjective approach that asks participants whether they are on-task or mind wandering. Although both approaches effectively predict attentional lapses, it remains unclear whether they capture the same or distinct attentional fluctuations. We combined both approaches within a single sustained attention task requiring frequent responses and response inhibition to rare targets to explore their consistency (N = 40). Behaviorally, both objective out-of-the-zone and subjective mind-wandering states were associated with more attentional lapses. However, the percentage of time spent out-of-the-zone did not differ between on-task and mind-wandering periods and both objective and subjective states independently predicted error-proneness, suggesting that the two methods do not capture the same type of attention fluctuations. Whereas attentional preparation before correct inhibitions was greater during out-of-the-zone compared with in-the-zone periods, preparation did not differ by subjective state. In contrast, posterror slowing differed by both objective and subjective states, but in opposite directions: slowing was observed when participants were objectively out-of-the-zone or subjectively on-task. Overall, our results provide evidence that objective and subjective approaches capture distinct attention fluctuations during sustained attention tasks. Integrating both objective and subjective measures is crucial for fully understanding the mechanisms underlying our ability to remain focused.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02640-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sustained attention fluctuates between periods of good and poor attentional performance. Two major methodologies exist to study these fluctuations: an objective approach that identifies "in-the-zone" states of consistent response times (RTs) and "out-of-the-zone" states of erratic RTs and a subjective approach that asks participants whether they are on-task or mind wandering. Although both approaches effectively predict attentional lapses, it remains unclear whether they capture the same or distinct attentional fluctuations. We combined both approaches within a single sustained attention task requiring frequent responses and response inhibition to rare targets to explore their consistency (N = 40). Behaviorally, both objective out-of-the-zone and subjective mind-wandering states were associated with more attentional lapses. However, the percentage of time spent out-of-the-zone did not differ between on-task and mind-wandering periods and both objective and subjective states independently predicted error-proneness, suggesting that the two methods do not capture the same type of attention fluctuations. Whereas attentional preparation before correct inhibitions was greater during out-of-the-zone compared with in-the-zone periods, preparation did not differ by subjective state. In contrast, posterror slowing differed by both objective and subjective states, but in opposite directions: slowing was observed when participants were objectively out-of-the-zone or subjectively on-task. Overall, our results provide evidence that objective and subjective approaches capture distinct attention fluctuations during sustained attention tasks. Integrating both objective and subjective measures is crucial for fully understanding the mechanisms underlying our ability to remain focused.

持续注意力的客观标记的波动独立于走神报告。
持续的注意力在良好和不良的注意力表现之间波动。研究这些波动主要有两种方法:一种是客观的方法,识别一致反应时间(RTs)的“在区域内”状态和不稳定反应时间的“在区域外”状态;另一种是主观的方法,询问参与者是在工作还是在走神。尽管这两种方法都能有效地预测注意力缺失,但它们是否能捕捉到同样的或不同的注意力波动仍不清楚。我们将这两种方法结合在一个需要频繁反应和对罕见目标的反应抑制的单一持续注意任务中,以探索它们的一致性(N = 40)。从行为上看,客观的“区域外”状态和主观的“走神”状态都与更多的注意力缺失有关。然而,在工作和走神期间,花在“区域外”的时间百分比并没有差异,客观状态和主观状态都独立地预测了错误倾向,这表明这两种方法并没有捕捉到相同类型的注意力波动。而在正确抑制之前的注意准备在非区域期间比在区域期间更大,准备没有因主观状态而差异。相比之下,客观状态和主观状态下的后视减缓有所不同,但方向相反:当参与者客观上离开区域或主观上完成任务时,都会观察到后视减缓。总的来说,我们的结果提供了客观和主观方法在持续注意力任务中捕捉到明显的注意力波动的证据。综合客观和主观测量对于充分理解我们保持专注能力的机制至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信