Detection of mind wandering using EEG: Within and across individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind wandering is often characterized by attention oriented away from an external task towards our internal, self-generated thoughts. This universal phenomenon has been linked to numerous disruptive functional outcomes, including performance errors and negative affect. Despite its prevalence and impact, studies to date have yet to identify robust behavioral signatures, making unobtrusive, yet reliable detection of mind wandering a difficult but important task for future applications. Here we examined whether electrophysiological measures can be used in machine learning models to accurately predict mind wandering states. We recorded scalp EEG from participants as they performed an auditory target detection task and self-reported whether they were on task or mind wandering. We successfully classified attention states both within (person-dependent) and across (person-independent) individuals using event-related potential (ERP) measures. Non-linear and linear machine learning models detected mind wandering above-chance within subjects: support vector machine (AUC = 0.715) and logistic regression (AUC = 0.635). Importantly, these models also generalized across subjects: support vector machine (AUC = 0.613) and logistic regression (AUC = 0.609), suggesting we can reliably predict a given individual's attention state based on ERP patterns observed in the group. This study is the first to demonstrate that machine learning models can generalize to "never-seen-before" individuals using electrophysiological measures, highlighting their potential for real-time prediction of covert attention states.
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".