Examining the effect of expected test format and test difficulty on the frequency and mnemonic costs of mind wandering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind wandering, generally defined as task-unrelated thought, has been shown to constitute between 30% and 50% of individuals' thoughts during almost every activity in which they are engaged. Critically, however, previous research has shown that the demands of a given task can lead to either the up- or down-regulation of mind wandering and that engagement in mind wandering may be differentially detrimental to future memory performance depending on learning conditions. The goal of the current research was to gain a better understanding of how the circumstances surrounding a learning episode affect the frequency with which individuals engage in off-task thought, and the extent to which these differences differentially affect memory performance across different test formats. Specifically, while prior work has manipulated the conditions of encoding, we focused on the anticipated characteristics of the retrieval task, thereby examining whether the anticipation of later demands imposed by the expected test format/difficulty would influence the frequency or performance costs of mind wandering during encoding. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that the anticipation of future test demands, as modelled by expected test format/difficulty, does not affect rates of mind wandering. However, the costs associated with mind wandering do appear to scale with the difficulty of the test. These findings provide important new insights into the impact of off-task thought on future memory performance and constrain our understanding of the strategic regulation of inattention in the context of learning and memory.
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".