Task difficulty modulates the effect of mind wandering on phase dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind wandering attenuates widespread sensory and motor processing, both of which are mediated by phase coherence. However, it remains unclear i) whether mind wandering impacts both sensory input and motor output processing by modulating ii) neural entrainment to external stimuli, as measured by intertrial phase coherence (ITPC), and specifically iii) whether task difficulty with different degrees of attentional demands moderates the impact of mind wandering on phase coherence. Using the thought-probe method, we assessed participants' attentional states during different sensory and motor tasks with varying task difficulty. We found that mind wandering decreased ITPC exclusively in less demanding tasks but not in difficult ones, regardless of whether the tasks involved visual input or motor output processing. Our results suggest that external task difficulty may modulate the balance between external and internal cognitive processing (e.g., mind wandering), with simpler tasks facilitating internally oriented cognition and increasing mind wandering. This balance between internal mind wandering and external task difficulty is mediated, in part, by phase coherence, which serves as an underlying neural mechanism. Collectively, our findings support the hypothesis that phase coherence and its dynamics (ITPC) play a key role in mediating the reciprocal balance of internal and external cognition-this suggests their partly shared cognitive-executive resources as entailed by the recently proposed Baseline model of cognition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".