Young and restless, old and focused: Age-differences in mind-wandering frequency and phenomenology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consistently observed age-accompanied diminution in mind-wandering stands seemingly opposed to accounts that present mind-wandering as a failure of executive control. This study examined the impact of aging on the frequency and phenomenology of mind-wandering and investigated distinct variables mediating age-related differences in unintentional and intentional mind-wandering. Thirty-four younger and 34 healthy older adults completed a neuropsychological test battery and contrast change detection task embedded with experience sampling probes asking participants to discriminate the nature of their thoughts. Results revealed age-related decreases in unintentional and intentional mind-wandering, but equivalent task accuracy. Parallel mediations demonstrated that older adults reduced their unintentional mind-wandering through having less anxiety and greater task engagement than younger adults. Despite the evidence of age-related decline on cognitive function tests, neither executive function nor task demand variables further contributed to the model. Our results adjudicate between competing theories, highlighting the roles of affective and motivational factors in unintentional mind-wandering. Intentional mind-wandering showed no significant associations with the neuropsychological measures; however, intentional mind-wandering was associated with more false alarms, which was mediated by greater reaction time variability (RTV). In the context of the exploitation/exploration framework, we suggest that younger adults were more inclined to intentionally mind-wander, indexed by increased RTV, while preserving comparable performance accuracy to older adults. Conversely, older adults exploited greater task focus, marked by reduced RTV, with less bias toward, or resources for, exploration of the mind-wandering space. Therefore, dispositional and strategic factors should be considered in future investigations of mind-wandering across the lifespan. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".