Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements

Ariga, Atsunori; Lleras, Alejandro

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.007

Cited by 142 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A correlation analysis revealed the same pattern, r = −.32, p < .05 (one tailed), demonstrating that the more an individual mind wandered in the lecture the less accurate their responses on the post-lecture test. Interestingly, this was not true of post-probe questions, F(1, 33) = .02, MSE = 505.11, p = .89 (one-tailed; low mind wanderers = 57%; high mind wanderers 56%), r = −.15, p = .39., which is consistent with the probes acting as a means of re-orienting attention to the lecture (e.g., Ariga & Lleras, 2011).…”

Section: Relation Between Mind Wandering and Performancementioning

confidence: 48%

Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture

Risko

Anderson

Sarwal

et al. 2011

Applied Cognitive Psychology

362

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the factors underlying variation in attentional state is critical in a number of domains. Here, we investigate the relation between time on task and mind wandering (i.e., a state of decoupled attention) in the context of a lecture. Lectures are the primary means of knowledge transmission in post secondary education rendering an understanding of attentional variations in lectures a pressing practical concern. We report two experiments wherein participants watched a video recorded lecture either alone (Experiment 1) or in a classroom context (Experiment 2). Participants responded to mind wandering probes at various times in the lecture in an effort to track variations in mind wandering over time. In addition, following the lecture, memory for the lecture material was tested. Results demonstrate that in a lecture mind wandering increases with time on task and memory for the lecture material decreases. In addition, there was a significant relation between mind wandering and memory for lecture material. Theoretical and practical applications of the present results are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Relation Between Mind Wandering and Performancementioning

confidence: 48%

Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture

Risko

Anderson

Sarwal

et al. 2011

Applied Cognitive Psychology

362

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of researchers have made a case for mind wandering as being a crucial part of human cognition that serves a number of important functions. Ariga and Lleras (2011) demonstrate a link between brief mental breaks and improvements in vigilance performance. Baird et al (2012) report evidence indicating that mind wandering can facilitate creative problem solving or even discovery.…”

Section: The Pros and Cons Of Task-unrelated Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thoughts in Flight

Casner

Schooler

2013

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective was to examine the relationship between cockpit automation use and taskrelated and task-unrelated thought among airline pilots.Background: Studies find that cockpit automation can sometimes relieve pilots of tedious control tasks and afford them more time to think ahead. Paradoxically, automation has also been shown to lead to lesser awareness. These results prompt the question of what pilots think about while using automation.Method: A total of 18 airline pilots flew a Boeing 747-400 simulator while we recorded which of two levels of automation they used. As they worked, pilots were verbally probed about what they were thinking. Pilots were asked to categorize their thoughts as pertaining to (a) a specific task at hand, (b) higher-level flight-related thoughts (e.g., planning ahead), or (c) thoughts unrelated to the flight. Pilots' performance was also measured.Results: Pilots reported a smaller percentage of task-at-hand thoughts (27% vs. 50%) and a greater percentage of higher-level flight-related thoughts (56% vs. 29%) when using the higher level of automation. However, when all was going according to plan, using either level of automation, pilots also reported a higher percentage of task-unrelated thoughts (21%) than they did when in the midst of an unsuccessful performance (7%). Task-unrelated thoughts peaked at 25% when pilots were not interacting with the automation.Conclusion: Although cockpit automation may provide pilots with more time to think, it may encourage pilots to reinvest only some of this mental free time in thinking flight-related thoughts.Application: This research informs the design of human-automation systems that more meaningfully engage the human operator.

show abstract

“…Errors also do not always directly measure the representations disrupted by interruptions, as illustrated by the null effect of interruptions here on nonsequence errors. Indeed, interruptions can actually lower error rates, if they trigger changes in arousal (Speier, Vessey, & Valacich, 2003) or performance strategy (Zijlstra, Roe, Leonora, & Krediet, 1999), or if performance would otherwise show a "vigilance decrement" (Ariga & Lleras, 2011). Ariga and Lleras (2011) argued that the vigilance decrement reflects habituation to the primary task and that an interruption forces the primary task to be reactivated when the interruption is over.…”

Section: Analysis 1: Interruption Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought.

Altmann

Trafton

Hambrick

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

186

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effect of short interruptions on performance of a task that required participants to maintain their place in a sequence of steps each with their own performance requirements. Interruptions averaging 4.4 s long tripled the rate of sequence errors on post-interruption trials relative to baseline trials. Interruptions averaging 2.8 s long-about the time to perform a step in the interrupted taskdoubled the rate of sequence errors. Nonsequence errors showed no interruption effects, suggesting that global attentional processes were not disrupted. Response latencies showed smaller interruption effects than sequence errors, a difference we interpret in terms of high levels of interference generated by the primary task. The results are consistent with an account in which activation spreading from the focus of attention allows control processes to navigate task-relevant representations and in which momentary interruptions are disruptive because they shift the focus and thereby cut off the flow.

show abstract

Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements

Cited by 142 publications

References 18 publications

Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture

Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture

Thoughts in Flight

Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About