Examining the relation between oral contraceptive use and attentional engagement in everyday life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral contraceptives (OCs) used by women worldwide include artificial estradiol and progesterone, which can attach to receptors in the brain and potentially influence cognition. In the present studies, we examined the relation between OC use and self-reported everyday attention. We collected trait-level measures of mind wandering, attention-related errors, and attention lapses in undergraduate women using OCs (Study 1: OC group N = 471, Study 2: OC group N = 246) and naturally cycling women not using any form of hormonal contraceptives (Study 1: Non-OC group N = 1,330, Study 2: Non-OC group N = 929). In Study 1, we found that women using OCs reported significantly less spontaneous and deliberate mind wandering than naturally cycling women and no differences between groups on attention-related errors and attention lapses. In Study 2, our findings indicated no significant differences between groups on any of our attention measures. Regression analyses controlling for depression symptoms and semester of data collection found that OC use did predict unique additional variance on some attention measures, but these effects were small and unreliable across the two studies. Taken together, our data suggests there is little evidence that OC use is related to differences in attentional engagement in everyday life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".