A Neural Model of Mind Wandering

Mittner, Matthias; Hawkins, Guy E.; Boekel, Wouter; Forstmann, Birte U.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.008

Cited by 49 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both states are predicted to have higher behavioral variability (differing in degree) but are expected to dissociate based on the specific DMN subsystems engaged (3). Consistent with the model, we found that MW was associated with greater behavioral variability at both intra-and interindividual levels (1).…”

supporting

confidence: 78%

Reply to Csifcsák and Mittner: Fitting data to neural models of mind-wandering

Kucyi¹,

Esterman²,

Valera³

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We recently provided evidence for a nonunitary account of default mode network (DMN) function, because DMN activity was associated with greater mind-wandering (MW) on the one hand, but with behavioral stability on the other (1). Csifcsák and Mittner (2) suggest that their nonunitary model of MW could explain these results. The model predicts distinct neural correlates for attentional states characterized as "off-focus" (a subconscious, exploratory state) versus "active MW" (a focus on an internal train of thought) (3). They offer thought-provoking consequences for interpreting activity that we reported in the frontoparietal network (FPN; no relationship with MW) and medial temporal lobe (MTL) subsystem of the DMN (no relationship with behavioral stability).According to their model, the high cognitive demand of the task in our study resulted in more off-focus than active MW states. Both states are predicted to have higher behavioral variability (differing in degree) but are expected to dissociate based on the specific DMN subsystems engaged (3). Consistent with the model, we found that MW was associated with greater behavioral variability at both intra-and interindividual levels (1). However, we believe that these relationships can at least partly be attributed to active MW. Beyond the self-reports during task performance, which required awareness that MW had occurred, postexperiment qualitative interviews revealed that participants consciously engaged in off-task trains of thought about the past and future. We acknowledge the possibility of prevalent off-focus states, but our measures did not allow us to capture such subconscious phenomena.Even if active MW states were more prevalent than off-focus, we would still not be entirely surprised that a relationship between MW and FPN activation was absent. In previous studies involving both the lowdemand task of avoiding structured thinking (4) and the potentially high "cognitive demand" of experimental pain (5), self-reported (conscious) MW has been associated with DMN but not FPN activation. It is possible that FPN activity reflects "cognitive control" aspects of MW, as often assumed in the field, but more studies are needed to provide clear evidence.Regarding the lack of correlation between behavioral stability and MTL subsystem activity, there was a trend in the same direction as in the other DMN subsystems. Compared with those other subsystems, the MTL subsystem contains regions with poorer fMRI signal to noise (6). It is possible that technical limitations masked an effect that was congruent with the effect of other DMN regions. Thus, it remains unclear whether off-focus states could explain our MTL subsystem results.Taken together, we remain open to the model-based interpretations of Csifcsák and Mittner, but we underscore that alternative explanations are possible. Importantly, a model that inherently yokes MW states with behavioral variability cannot account for our key result: Each factor independently predicted DMN activity. Formal neural models of MW, suc...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 78%

Reply to Csifcsák and Mittner: Fitting data to neural models of mind-wandering

Kucyi¹,

Esterman²,

Valera³

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overrepresentation of off-focus states can explain why DMN activity was associated with both self-reported MW and stable behavior, and why there was no correlation between behavioral stability and activity in the MTL subsystem. Furthermore, the predominance of off-focus states can also account for the absence of MW-related FPN recruitment in this study, because the FPN has been linked to internally guided cognition (6), resembling active MW (8). From a different perspective, the distinction between deliberate vs. nondeliberate MW gained increasing interest recently, with deliberate MW being accompanied by elevated FPN activity (4, 9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Recently, we proposed that aspects of MW may involve two hierarchically organized states that differ in their behavioral and neural signatures: an "off-focus" state characterized by less variable behavior and increased activity in core DMN nodes and an "active MW" state associated with more variable behavior and elevated hemodynamic signals in other DMN subcomponents such as the medial temporal lobe (MTL) subsystem (8). According to this model, off-focus states are more common in demanding tasks involving complex stimuli, and thus might have been dominant in the study by Kucyi et al (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking brain networks and behavioral variability to different types of mind-wandering

Csifcsák

Mittner

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research focusing on mind-wandering (MW) has consistently shown that this mental state is accompanied by variable, error-prone behavior and increased activity within the default mode network (DMN) and the frontoparietal control network (FPN) (1-6). Given that the DMN has been implicated in internal mentation such as future planning or self-referential processing, whereas the FPN has been linked to cognitive control, the idea that activity within both networks is coupled with self-reported MW and poor behavioral performance has been widely accepted in this research field. In an intriguing new study in PNAS, Kucyi et al. (7) challenge this view by showing that hemodynamic responses in the DMN are strongest during periods of MW and stable, rather than variable, behavior. This remarkable result widens our knowledge on task-positive aspects of the DMN. Simultaneously, it remains rather puzzling how this network can be involved in MW and stable behavior at the same time, or why the authors found no relationship between behavioral measures and FPN activity (2, 3).We believe that the apparent conflict between these findings and earlier reports can be resolved by highlighting that MW is not a unitary phenomenon. Recently, we proposed that aspects of MW may involve two hierarchically organized states that differ in their behavioral and neural signatures: an "off-focus" state characterized by less variable behavior and increased activity in core DMN nodes and an "active MW" state associated with more variable behavior and elevated hemodynamic signals in other DMN subcomponents such as the medial temporal lobe (MTL) subsystem (8). According to this model, off-focus states are more common in demanding tasks involving complex stimuli, and thus might have been dominant in the study by Kucyi et al. (7). The overrepresentation of off-focus states can explain why DMN activity was associated with both self-reported MW and stable behavior, and why there was no correlation between behavioral stability and activity in the MTL subsystem. Furthermore, the predominance of off-focus states can also account for the absence of MW-related FPN recruitment in this study, because the FPN has been linked to internally guided cognition (6), resembling active MW (8). From a different perspective, the distinction between deliberate vs. nondeliberate MW gained increasing interest recently, with deliberate MW being accompanied by elevated FPN activity (4, 9). Considering that deliberate MW is less frequent in demanding tasks (9), the paradigm of Kucyi et al. (7) might not have allowed extended periods of intentional MW, resulting in weaker FPN signals.The study by Kucyi et al. (7) is unique because it not only underscores the diverse functional characteristics of the DMN but also convincingly shows that the interplay between neural networks, task performance, and selfreported MW is not straightforward. With the aim of extending their interpretation of results, we emphasize that heterogeneity not only applies to the function of the DMN but also to MW...

show abstract

“…The DMN has since been shown to play a broader role in selfreferential thought, internally-generated thought, and social cognition (Amft et al, 2014;Mittner et al, 2016). The overlap in neural activation during self-reflection and ToM has inspired simulation theory, which holds that ToM is facilitated by imagining one's own reaction if put in a similar situation (Spunt et al, 2015).…”

Section: Event Cognition In Evolutionary Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion.

Taves¹,

Asprem²,

Ihm³

2018

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To get beyond the solely negative identities signaled by atheism and agnosticism, we have to conceptualize an object of study that includes religions and non-religions. We advocate a shift from "religions" to "worldviews" and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on "big questions" ([BQs], e.g., what exists? how should we live?). From a worldviews perspective, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs to generate a wide range of worldviews. To lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences, we ground them in humans' evolved world-making capacities. Conceptualizing worldviews in this way allows us to identify, refine, and connect concepts that are appropriate to different levels of analysis. We argue that the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals). Viewing the meaning making processes that enable humans to generate worldviews from an evolutionary perspective allows us to raise news questions for psychology with particular relevance for the study of nonreligious worldviews.

show abstract

A Neural Model of Mind Wandering

Cited by 49 publications

References 33 publications

Reply to Csifcsák and Mittner: Fitting data to neural models of mind-wandering

Reply to Csifcsák and Mittner: Fitting data to neural models of mind-wandering

Linking brain networks and behavioral variability to different types of mind-wandering

Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About