Uncovering the embodied dimension of the wandering mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When at rest, the mind becomes preoccupied with self-generated thoughts, commonly known as mind-wandering. While the social, autobiographical, and temporal features of these thoughts have been extensively studied, little is known about how frequently the wandering mind turns towards the interoceptive and somatic body. To map this under-explored component of "body-wandering," we conducted a large-scale neuroimaging study in 536 healthy participants, expanding a retrospective multidimensional experience sampling approach to include probes targeting visceral and somatomotor thoughts. Our findings reveal a robust inter-individual dimension of body-wandering characterized by negative affect, high autonomic arousal, and a reduction in socially oriented thoughts. Despite this negative tone, individual differences in the propensity for body-wandering were associated with lower self-reported symptoms of ADHD and depression. Multivariate functional connectivity analyses further revealed that affective, body-oriented thoughts are related to a pattern of thalamocortical connectivity interlinking somatomotor and interoceptive-allostatic cortical networks. Collectively, these results demonstrate that self-generated thoughts exhibit core embodied features which are linked to the ongoing physical and emotional milieu of the visceral body. Significance statement Neuroimaging studies often treat the resting state as a purely cognitive baseline, overlooking the participant’s embodied experience within the scanner. Here we show that individuals robustly vary in their degree of body-wandering, such that a more somatically focused stream of thought is associated with negative affect, higher arousal, and increased thalamocortical-somatomotor connectivity. Paradoxically, while this state is experienced negatively in the moment, the propensity for embodied mind-wandering correlates with reduced trait level symptoms of depression and ADHD. Collectively, these findings indicate that we must account for the embodied nature of the resting mind to fully understand the neural and clinical mechanisms of self-generated thought.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".