A comprehensive guide to research protocols for collecting and coding involuntary past and future thoughts.

The paper presents a comprehensive guide for researchers investigating mind-wandering and related phenomena such as involuntary past and future thinking. Examining such spontaneous cognitions presents a challenge requiring not only the use of appropriate laboratory-based procedures, but also the coding of complex qualitative data. This guide outlines two main stages of existing research protocols: data acquisition and data coding. For the former, we introduce an easily modifiable computerized version of the vigilance task, designed for broad application in studies focusing on eliciting and measuring involuntary thoughts in controlled laboratory conditions. Regarding data preparation and coding, we provide a detailed step-by-step procedure for categorizing and coding different types of thoughts, involving both participants and competent judges. Additionally, we address some of the difficulties that may arise during this categorization and coding process. The guide is supplemented by a clip demonstrating the main part of the experimental procedure and a step-by-step example of the subsequent data processing stages. We anticipate that this research guide will not only assist a broader group of researchers interested in investigating spontaneous cognition, but will also inspire future studies on spontaneous cognition and related phenomena.•There is a need for standardized approaches to working with qualitative data when investigating spontaneous thoughts.•The paper outlines a comprehensive protocol for collecting and coding involuntary past and future-oriented thoughts.•The paper also presents a detailed step-by-step procedure for data preparation and coding to categorize different types of thoughts, involving both participants and competent judges.

Mind wandering probes as a source of mind wandering depends on attention control demands.

Mind wandering is a topic of great interest in many areas, but as with all psychological constructs, the interpretation of experimental results might depend on the way it is measured. A common way of measuring mind wandering in experiments is with self-report thought probes. An important question with this methodology is if the probe itself may be influencing participants' mind wandering. Previous research suggests that multiple thought probes throughout a task may lead to less mind wandering. However, in some studies (e.g., Schubert et al, 2019) the probes occurred during a recorded lecture video and in the others (e.g., Seli et al, 2016) the probes occurred during a sustained attention to response task (SART). What is missing in the current literature is a comparison of the effect the number of thought probes has on mind wandering during a task that requires a greater deal of thought control throughout the task to perform well, such as a complex span task or working memory. As such, in the two experiments presented here we randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions. Conditions contained a minimum of one and a maximum of six probes. In the first experiment, we found that participants who had received fewer probes mind wandered less during an operation span task, supporting our hypothesis. In the second experiment, we found that participants who had received fewer probes mind wandered more during a video lecture. The results suggest that thought probes interact with attentional control demands to influence mind wandering.

Examining the effects of probe frequency, response options, and framing within the thought-probe method.

A recent surge of interest in the empirical measurement of mind-wandering has led to an increase in the use of thought-probing to measure attentional states, which has led to large variation in methodologies across studies (Weinstein in Behavior Research Methods, 50, 642-661, 2018). Three sources of variation in methodology include the frequency of thought probes during a task, the number of response options provided for each probe, and the way in which various attentional states are framed during the task instructions. Method variation can potentially affect behavioral performance on the tasks in which thought probes are embedded, the experience of various attentional states within those tasks, and/or response biases to the thought probes. Therefore, such variation can be problematic, both pragmatically and theoretically. Across three experiments, we examined how manipulating probe frequency, response options, and framing affected behavioral performance and responses to thought probes. Probe frequency and framing did not affect behavioral performance or probe responses. But, in light of the present results, we argue that thought probes need at least three responses, corresponding to on-task, off-task, and task-related interference. When researchers are specifically investigating mind-wandering, the probe responses should also distinguish between mind-wandering, external distraction, and mind-blanking.

The influence of thought probes on performance: Does the mind wander more if you ask it?

Mind-wandering has emerged in the past decade as a popular topic in many areas of psychological research. Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential costs and benefits of mind-wandering in relation to ongoing task performance, along with more recent work examining the nature of different types of mind-wandering. A common method of measuring mind-wandering in laboratory research is to embed self-report thought probes at random intervals within an ongoing task. However, a critical issue to determine is whether or not the presence of the thought probes fundamentally alters how an individual typically performs on the task. In the current study, N = 149 participants completed a sustained attention to response task (SART) with and without the presence of mind-wandering thought probes. In addition, participants completed operation and symmetry span measures of working memory capacity, as several studies have examined the relationship between individual differences in working memory capacity and mind-wandering using thought probes on the SART. The results indicate that SART performance does not differ whether thought probes are included or not. Individuals higher in working memory capacity produced better SART performance in the conditions with and without thought probes. In addition, individuals in working memory capacity were negatively correlated with mind-wandering frequency. The results indicate that thought probe measurement is a non-reactive method to measure mind-wandering in attention and inhibition tasks.

What did you have in mind? Examining the content of intentional and unintentional types of mind wandering.

It has recently been argued that researchers should distinguish between mind wandering (MW) that is engaged with and without intention. Supporting this argument, studies have found that intentional and unintentional MW have behavioral/neural differences, and that they are differentially associated with certain variables of theoretical interest. Although there have been considerable inroads made into the distinction between intentional/unintentional MW, possible differences in their content remain unexplored. To determine whether these two types of MW differ in content, we had participants complete a task during which they categorized their MW as intentional or unintentional, and then provided responses to questions about the content of their MW. Results indicated that intentional MW was more frequently rated as being future-oriented and less vague than unintentional MW. These findings shed light on the nature of intentional and unintentional MW and provide support for the argument that researchers should distinguish between intentional and unintentional types.

Internal and external attention and the default mode network.

Focused attention meditations have been shown to improve psychological health and wellbeing and are nowadays an integral part of many psychotherapies. While research on the neural correlates of focused attention meditation is increasing, findings vary on whether meditations are associated with high or low activity in the default mode network (DMN). To clarify the relationship between focused attention meditation and the activity in DMN regions, it may be helpful to distinguish internal and external attention as well as different phases within one meditation: During focused attention meditation, the practitioner switches between mindful attention, mind-wandering and refocusing. Here, we employed a thought-probe paradigm to study the neural correlates of these different phases. Twenty healthy, meditation naïve participants were introduced to external (mindfulness of sound) and internal (mindfulness of breathing) attention meditation and then practiced the meditation at home for four consecutive days. They then performed the same focused attention meditations during fMRI scanning, in four runs alternating between internal and external attention. At pseudorandom intervals, participants were asked whether they had just been focused on the task (mindful attention) or had been distracted (mind-wandering). During mindful attention, brain regions typically associated with the DMN, such as the medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and left temporoparietal junction showed significantly less neural activation compared to mind-wandering phases. Reduced activity of the DMN was found during both external and internal attention, with stronger deactivation in the posterior cingulate cortex during internal attention compared to external attention. Moreover, refocusing after mind-wandering was associated with activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus. Our results support the theory that mindful attention is associated with reduced DMN activity compared to mind-wandering, independent of the practitioner's attention focus (i.e., internal vs. external).

How few and far between? Examining the effects of probe rate on self-reported mind wandering.

We examined whether the temporal rate at which thought probes are presented affects the likelihood that people will report periods of mind wandering. To evaluate this possibility, we had participants complete a sustained-attention task (the Metronome Response Task; MRT) during which we intermittently presented thought probes. Critically, we varied the average time between probes (i.e., probe rate) across participants, allowing us to examine the relation between probe rate and mind-wandering rate. We observed a positive relation between these variables, indicating that people are more likely to report mind wandering as the time between probes increases. We discuss the methodological implications of this finding in the context of the mind-wandering literature, and suggest that researchers include a range of probe rates in future work to provide more insight into this methodological issue.