scholarly journals Testing the Attention-Distractibility Trait

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Thought Probes ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
And Task

Forster and Lavie (2014, 2016) found that task-irrelevant distraction correlated positively with a measure of mind-wandering and a report of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptomology. Based primarily on these results, Forster and Lavie claimed to establish an attention-distractibility trait. Here, I sought to replicate the associations among measures of task-irrelevant distraction, mind wandering, and ADHD symptomology, and to test if these associations could be distinguished from associations with working memory capacity and task-relevant distraction. With data collected from two hundred and twenty-six subjects (ns differ among analyses), the results from the current study suggest that the measure of task-irrelevant distraction is not (or only very weakly) associated with measures of mind wandering (measured both with a stand-alone questionnaire and in-task thought probes) and ADHD symptomology. Additionally, the measure of irrelevant-distraction exhibited low internal consistency suggesting that (as measured) it is not capable of being a an individual differences measure. [Preregistration, data, analysis scripts and output are available via the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/bhs24/].

Is There a Positive Association Between Working Memory Capacity and Mind Wandering in a Low-Demand Breathing Task? A Preregistered Replication of a Study by Levinson, Smallwood, and Davidson (2012)

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 789-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt E. Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Breath Awareness ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Thought Probes

Levinson, Smallwood, and Davidson (2012, Experiment 2) found that working memory capacity (WMC) correlated positively with mind-wandering rates measured by thought probes in a breath-awareness task but was unassociated with the tendency to self-catch mind wandering. Here, I sought to replicate the associations between mind wandering and WMC in Levinson et al.’s breath-awareness task. The data from the current study, collected from 315 subjects ( ns differed among analyses) and two measures of WMC, suggest that if WMC correlates with probe-caught mind wandering, the association is most likely negative. In addition, the evidence regarding self-caught mind wandering is consistent with that found by Levinson et al. for the sum of self-caught responses, but when self-caught responses were considered in proportion to probe-caught mind wandering, modest evidence was found for a positive association with WMC.

scholarly journals Is There a Positive Association between Working Memory Capacity and Mind Wandering in a Low-Demand Breathing Task? A Preregistered Replication of Levinson, Smallwood, and Davidson (2012)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Breath Monitoring ◽  
Thought Probes

Levinson, Smallwood, and Davidson (2012, Experiment 2) found that working memory capacity (WMC) correlated positively with mind-wandering propensity measured by thought probes in a breath-monitoring task, but was unassociated with the tendency to self-catch mind-wandering. Here, I sought to replicate the associations between mind-wandering and WMC in the Levinson et al. breath task. With data from a large sample of subjects and two measures of WMC, the data from the current study suggests that, if WMC correlates with probe-caught mind wandering, it is most likely negative. In addition, the evidence regarding self-caught mind wandering is consistent with Levinson et al. for the sum of self-caught responses, but when self-caught responses are considered in proportion to probe-caught mind wandering, modest evidence was found for a positive association with WMC.

scholarly journals The interaction of working memory capacity and task difficulty affects mind-wandering

2019 ◽  
Vol 83 (0) ◽  
pp. 2C-033-2C-033
Author(s):  
Risa Nakagawa ◽  
Shiho Kashihara ◽  
Junya Hashimoto ◽  
Ryota Kobayashi ◽  
Makoto Miyatani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
And Task

An Individual Differences Investigation of the Relations Among Life Event Stress, Working Memory Capacity, and Mind Wandering: A Replication-Extension Study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Goller ◽  
Jonathan Britten Banks ◽  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Extension Study ◽  
Negative Life Event ◽  
Life Event ◽  
Life Event Stress ◽  
Event Stress

Klein and Boals (2001, Experiments 1 and 2) found that working memory capacity correlated negatively with perceived negative life event stress and speculated the relation may be driven by thoughts produced from these experiences. Here, we sought to replicate the association between working memory capacity and perceived negative life experience and to assess potential mediators of this association such as mind wandering propensity, rumination propensity, and the sum of negatively-valenced mind wandering reports. In this preregistered replication and extension study, with data collected from three hundred and fifty-six subjects (ns differ among analyses), we found no evidence suggesting that perceived negative life stress is associated with working memory capacity. Additionally, we found evidence consistent with the claim that negatively-valenced mind wandering is uniquely detrimental to cognitive task performance, but we highlight a potential confound that may account for this association that should be addressed in future work.

Working memory capacity and task goals modulate error-related ERPs

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. e12805 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Coleman ◽  
Jason M. Watson ◽  
David L. Strayer
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Task Goals ◽  
And Task
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document