When Does Prospective Timing Become Prospective Remembering?: Effects of Attentional Decoupling on Time Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment investigated whether participants stop tracking time in long duration time perception tasks.A classic mind-wandering paradigm (Schooler et al., 2004) was replicated and extended: participants (N = 118) read War and Peace (Tolstoy, 2001) for 38 minutes, estimated the task duration, and then were tested for comprehension.Some participants selfmonitored for mind-wandering (i.e., attentional decoupling from a task), or time-lapses (i.e., attentional decoupling from time).The rest did not self-monitor.Additionally, participants were informed of the impending estimate (i.e., prospective paradigm) or were not (i.e., retrospective paradigm).The results partially replicated Schooler et al.: participants mind-wandered, but it did not predict comprehension.Also, time-lapses occurred regularly and often without being noticed.Time-lapses were harder to self-monitor than mind-wandering, despite occurring more often.Finally, paradigm differences were only found when participants monitored for time-lapses.Thus, attention to time over long durations may rely on effective self-monitoring for attentional lapses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".