Compliant activity rather than difficulty accelerates thought probe responsiveness and inhibits deliberate mind wandering

Abstract

Introduction: Mind wandering is a cognitive state that leads to diminished performance and error risk. A controversy over whether easier or more difficult tasks enhance mind wandering has led to mind wandering being proposed as two different states: deliberate and spontaneous. We hypothesise that forced engagement may inhibit non-instrumental activities including deliberate mind wandering. Methods: Twenty-eight seated, healthy participants (age range 19-35, 9 male) interacted with two pairs of stimuli, each pair having one low-interactivity version and a high-interactivity version requiring compliant activity. Mind wandering was assessed by thought probes, and mind wandering and challenge and boredom were also tested using visual analogue scales at the end of each stimulus. Reaction times were measured using Superlab with an RB530 interaction device. Results: Compliant activity decreased deliberate mind wandering but not overall mind wandering. Thought probe durations were significantly shortened by increasing interaction frequency, while deliberate and spontaneous mind wandering elicited equivalent thought probe durations. Conclusion: Compliant activity works synergistically with lack of mind wandering to accelerate the difficult task of thought probe response. This does not fit with the attentional resource model, and may require a clearer definition of how tasks may be labelled as difficult.

Mind wandering and task difficulty: The determinants of working memory, intentionality, motivation, and subjective difficulty.

“…Intentional TUTs were selectively limited during the changing-target SART, consistent with the findings of Subhani et al (2019). This indicates that decreasing the repetitiveness of a task can inhibit intentional TUT.…”

“…Prior work suggests that people may mind wander during a sustained attention task is because it is monotonous and understimulating (e.g., the mindlessness hypothesis, Thomson et al, 2015). Consistent with this, Subhani et al (2019) observed that increases in compliant activity reduce intentional, but not unintentional TUTs. As such modifying the SART to include more instructional changes which participants need to attend to may also decrease intentional TUTs relative to the standard SART.…”

“…Intention is then, a useful dimension for understanding the TUT-task demands association. More recently, evidence also suggests that task features (Forrin et al, 2021; Subhani et al, 2019), and subjective perceptions of tasks (Forrin et al, 2021), can influence engagement in off-task thinking.…”

“…Finally, we are interested in how motivational processes, subjective assessments of a task, and task features, influence engagement in different types of TUTs. Subhani et al (2019) investigated potential methods to decrease deliberate TUTs during human fail-safe supervision of highly automated tasks. As it is argued that deliberate TUTs result from underload, while spontaneous TUTs result from overload (Neiss, 1988; Subhani et al, 2019; Xu & Metcalfe, 2016), these authors sought to observe whether compliant activity (i.e., continued behavioral engagement with a task), could inhibit intentional TUTs.…”

“…Subhani et al (2019) investigated potential methods to decrease deliberate TUTs during human fail-safe supervision of highly automated tasks. As it is argued that deliberate TUTs result from underload, while spontaneous TUTs result from overload (Neiss, 1988; Subhani et al, 2019; Xu & Metcalfe, 2016), these authors sought to observe whether compliant activity (i.e., continued behavioral engagement with a task), could inhibit intentional TUTs. Compliant tasks are not necessarily more difficult, but they do require more interaction.…”