Neurocognitive patterns dissociating semantic processing from executive control are linked to more detailed off-task mental time travel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 ABSTRACT Features of ongoing experience are common across individuals and cultures. However, certain people express specific patterns to a greater extent than others. The current psychological theory assumes that individual differences in thought patterns occur because different types of experience depend on differences in associated neurocognitive mechanisms. Consequently, individual variation in the underlying neurocognitive architecture is hypothesised to determine the ease with which certain thought patterns are generated or maintained. Our study (N=178) tested this hypothesis using multivariate pattern analysis to infer shared variance among measures of cognitive function and neural organisation and examined whether these hidden structures explain reports of the patterns of on-going thoughts people experienced in the lab. We found that relatively better performance on tasks requiring primarily semantic knowledge, rather than executive control, was linked to a neural functional organisation that was associated, via meta-analysis, with task labels related to semantic associations (sentence processing, reading and verbal semantics). Variability of this functional mode predicted significant individual variation in the types of thoughts that individuals experienced in the laboratory: Neurocognitive patterns linked to better performance at tasks that required guidance from semantic representation, rather than those dependent on executive control, were associated with patterns of thought characterised by greater subjective detail and a focus on time periods other than the here and now. These relationships were consistent across different days and did not vary with task condition, indicating they are relatively stable features of an individual’s cognitive profile. Together these data confirm that individual variation in aspects of ongoing experience can be inferred from hidden neurocognitive architecture and demonstrate that performance trade-offs between executive control and long term semantic knowledge are linked to a person’s tendency to imagine situations that transcend the here and now.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".