Evidence for Depressogenic Spontaneous Thoughts and Altered Resting-State Connectivity in Adolescents With a Maltreatment History

Hoffmann, Ferdinand; Viding, Essi; Puetz, Vanessa B.; Gerin, Mattia Indi; Sethi, Arjun; Rankin, Georgia; McCrory, Eamon

doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.05.020

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2006, Smallwood and Schooler published their seminal review of the emerging scientific literature on mind wandering. The next decade and a half saw rapid growth in mind-wandering research, particularly within cognitive psychology and neuroscience (see Callard et al, 2013), but also across such diverse contexts as aeronautics and astronautics (e.g., Casner & Schooler, 2014;Gontier, 2017), education (e.g., , human factors (e.g., Burdett et al, 2019;Walker & Trick, 2018), lifespan development (e.g., Jackson & Balota, 2012;Soemer et al, 2019;Stawarczyk et al, 2014), personality (e.g., Perkins et al, 2015;, philosophy (e.g., Irving, 2016;Metzinger, 2013), and psychopathology (e.g., Chen et al, 2021;Hoffmann et al, 2018;Lanier et al, 2021;Makovac et al, 2019). And, despite a research pace and impact that has supported numerous reviews and theoretical commentaries (e.g., Klinger, 2013;Mildner & Tamir, 2019;Mittner et al, 2016;Smallwood & Andrews-Hanna, 2013;Smallwood & Schooler, 2015), little published work has focused on the validity of subjects' selfreported mind-wandering experiences.…”

Section: Measurement Of Mind Wanderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yield different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Of Mind Wanderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although adversityrelated differences in the structure and function of multiple regions in the default mode network have been observed, existing theories do not describe how adversity exposure might influence the development of this network. Moreover, associations of adversity with function in large-scale cortical networks and interactions across networks have only recently been examined (Hoffman et al 2018b, Iadipaolo et al 2018, and theoretical predictions on how adversity may shape these types of interactions are lacking.…”

Section: Expanding Neurodevelopmental Models Of Adversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood Adversity and Neural Development: A Systematic Review

McLaughlin

Weissman

Bitrán

2019

Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol.

533

458

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive literature on childhood adversity and neurodevelopment has emerged over the past decade. We evaluate two conceptual models of adversity and neurodevelopment—the dimensional model of adversity and stress acceleration model—in a systematic review of 109 studies using MRI-based measures of neural structure and function in children and adolescents. Consistent with the dimensional model, children exposed to threat had reduced amygdala, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and hippocampal volume and heightened amygdala activation to threat in a majority of studies; these patterns were not observed consistently in children exposed to deprivation. In contrast, reduced volume and altered function in frontoparietal regions were observed consistently in children exposed to deprivation but not children exposed to threat. Evidence for accelerated development in amygdala-mPFC circuits was limited but emerged in other metrics of neurodevelopment. Progress in charting neurodevelopmental consequences of adversity requires larger samples, longitudinal designs, and more precise assessments of adversity.

show abstract

“…In 2006, Smallwood and Schooler published their seminal review of the fledgling scientific literature on mind wandering. The next decade and a half saw rapid growth in mind-wandering research, particularly within cognitive psychology and neuroscience (see Callard et al, 2013), but also across such diverse contexts as aeronautics and astronautics (e.g., Casner & Schooler, 2014;Gontier, 2017), education (e.g., Wammes et al, 2016aWammes et al, , 2016b, human factors (e.g., Burdett et al, 2019;Walker & Trick, 2018), lifespan development (e.g., Jackson & Balota, 2012;Soemer et al, 2019;Stawarczyk et al, 2014), personality (e.g., Perkins et al, 2015;, philosophy (e.g., Irving, 2016;Metzinger, 2013), and psychopathology (e.g., Chen et al, in press;Hoffmann et al, 2018;Lanier et al, in press;Makovac et al, in press). And, despite a research pace and impact that has supported numerous reviews and theoretical commentaries (e.g., Christoff & Fox, 2018;Klinger, 2013;Mildner & Tamir, 2019;Mittner et al, 2016;Smallwood & Andrews-Hanna, 2013;Smallwood & Schooler, 2015), little published work has focused on the validity of subjects' self-reported mind-wandering experiences.…”

Section: Measurement Of Mind Wanderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Kane¹,

Smeekens²,

Meier³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1,000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yielded different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research.

show abstract

Evidence for Depressogenic Spontaneous Thoughts and Altered Resting-State Connectivity in Adolescents With a Maltreatment History

Abstract: Adolescents who experienced maltreatment show a reduction in positively valenced spontaneous thoughts and reduced sgACC-FPN RSFC at the neural level. These may contribute to a ruminative thinking style, representing risk factors for developing depression later in life.

Cited by 31 publications

References 46 publications

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Childhood Adversity and Neural Development: A Systematic Review

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About