Literature DB >> 19215913

Anatomy of an error: a bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors.

J Allan Cheyne1, Grayden J F Solman, Jonathan S A Carriere, Daniel Smilek.   

Abstract

We present arguments and evidence for a three-state attentional model of task engagement/disengagement. The model postulates three states of mind-wandering: occurrent task inattention, generic task inattention, and response disengagement. We hypothesize that all three states are both causes and consequences of task performance outcomes and apply across a variety of experimental and real-world tasks. We apply this model to the analysis of a widely used GO/NOGO task, the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). We identify three performance characteristics of the SART that map onto the three states of the model: RT variability, anticipations, and omissions. Predictions based on the model are tested, and largely corroborated, via regression and lag-sequential analyses of both successful and unsuccessful withholding on NOGO trials as well as self-reported mind-wandering and everyday cognitive errors. The results revealed theoretically consistent temporal associations among the state indicators and between these and SART errors as well as with self-report measures. Lag analysis was consistent with the hypotheses that temporal transitions among states are often extremely abrupt and that the association between mind-wandering and performance is bidirectional. The bidirectional effects suggest that errors constitute important occasions for reactive mind-wandering. The model also enables concrete phenomenological, behavioral, and physiological predictions for future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19215913     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  73 in total

1.  Brief mental breaks and content-free cues may not keep you focused.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Drifting from slow to "D'oh!": working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors.

Authors:  Jennifer C McVay; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Mind wandering minimizes mind numbing: Reducing semantic-satiation effects through absorptive lapses of attention.

Authors:  Benjamin W Mooneyham; Jonathan W Schooler
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-08

4.  Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: A microanalytic-macroanalytic investigation of individual differences in goal activation and maintenance.

Authors:  Matt E Meier; Bridget A Smeekens; Paul J Silvia; Thomas R Kwapil; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Working memory load and the vigilance decrement.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the Sustained Attention to Response Task.

Authors:  William S Helton; James Head; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  When the brain takes a break: a model-based analysis of mind wandering.

Authors:  Matthias Mittner; Wouter Boekel; Adrienne M Tucker; Brandon M Turner; Andrew Heathcote; Birte U Forstmann
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  Kristin M Finkbeiner; Kyle M Wilson; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 9.  A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Matthew K Robison
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

10.  The relationship between ERP components and EEG spatial complexity in a visual Go/Nogo task.

Authors:  Huibin Jia; Huayun Li; Dongchuan Yu
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.