Local build-up of sleep pressure could trigger mind wandering: Evidence from sleep, circadian and mind wandering research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind wandering (MW), or having thoughts unrelated to the task at hand, is a very pervasive phenomenon. Although research on MW has exponentially grown during the last decade and a half, the mechanisms behind this omnipresent phenomenon remain largely unknown. In this review, we will discuss some factors that have been shown to contribute to the occurrence of MW: the quality of sleep, the time of day when the task is performed, the chronotype of the individual and the duration of the task. The intriguing commonality between these specific factors is that they all suggest a relation between MW and sleep pressure. In line with recent work relating MW to local sleep-like activity, we here will argue that one of the mechanisms underlying the pervasiveness of MW might be the local build-up of homeostatic sleep pressure that inevitably occurs during task performance in the brain areas related to the task. Mind wandering could then occur not only to serve a biological purpose, e.g. brain protection, but also a functional one, e.g. off-line learning, that can be beneficial for behavioral performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".