RESUMO
This study was designed to examine how mind-wandering and its neural correlates vary across tasks with different attentional demands, motivated by the context regulation hypothesis of mind-wandering. Participants (n = 59 undergraduates) completed the sustained attention to response task (SART) and the Stroop selective attention task in counterbalanced order while EEG was recorded. The tasks included experience-sampling probes to identify self-reported episodes of mind-wandering, along with retrospective reports. Participants reported more mind-wandering during the SART than the Stroop and during whichever task was presented second during the session, compared with first. Replicating previous findings, EEG data (n = 37 usable participants) indicated increased alpha oscillations during episodes of mind-wandering, compared with on-task episodes, for both the SART and Stroop tasks. ERP data, focused on the P2 component reflecting perceptual processing, found that mind-wandering was associated with increased P2 amplitudes during the Stroop task, counter to predictions from the perceptual decoupling theory. Overall, the study found that self-report and neural correlates of mind-wandering are sensitive to task context. This line of research can further the understanding of how mechanisms of mind-wandering are adapted to varied tasks and situations.
Assuntos
Avaliação Momentânea Ecológica , Pensamento , Humanos , Pensamento/fisiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Autorrelato , EletroencefalografiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Reported community transmission rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may not be accurate, particularly since at-home testing has become widely available. School absenteeism may serve as a marker of broader community COVID-19 transmission. METHODS: We performed an observational study of North Carolina kindergarten through 12th grade schools participating in the ABC Science Collaborative that offered in-school instruction, and contributed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 data for at least 2 of 4 weeks monthly for the 2021-2022 academic year. Additionally, we analyzed publicly available databases including the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Data Repository, and National Center for Education Statistics. We described community and school COVID-19 infection rates compared with student monthly absenteeism rates to determine if the relationship between community COVID-19 infection rates and student absenteeism varied over time. RESULTS: We included 500 192 students from 27 school districts. For the 2021-2022 academic year, the student and community COVID-19 infection rates did not show a significant difference (Pâ >â .05) across each month of comparison. Student absenteeism rates and community COVID-19 infection rates by month showed a similar trend across the academic year. For every 1% increase in community infection percentage, we found a 1.68% (1.12-2.25%) increase in absenteeism (Pâ <â .001); for every 1 month change in time, we found a 0.12% (0.01-0.24%) increase in absenteeism (Pâ <â .05). CONCLUSIONS: Student absenteeism and infection rates may be a useful marker of COVID-19 community infection rates when testing frequency and results reporting are inconsistent.