Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Mind-Wandering or Task-Unrelated Thought Reports May Be a Response to Performance Not a Cause of Performance: Using Forced Errors to Impact Thought Content Reports
In this study, we aimed to show that post-task self-reported mind-wandering can be influenced by task performance.
Background
Retrospective self-report scales are widely used to measure thought content such as task-unrelated thoughts or mind-wandering in sustained attention or vigilance research. Self-reported thought content is presumed to be a predictor of performance. However, it is possible performance affects how people report their thought content.
Method
In a remote online experiment, we used a fixed order Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) to force errors by manipulating an expected stimulus. We then assessed self-reported thought content.
Results
We were successful in forcing errors in the SART. Participants in the forced error version of the task reported having higher task-unrelated thoughts than those participants in a version of the task which did not force an error, despite the tasks being identical up until the forced error.
Conclusion
Post-task thought content probes (and similar thought content measures) are apparently affected by task performance despite their conventional use as a predictor of that performance. The current method of using post hoc thought content probes is thus a poor choice for studying the impact of thought content on performance.
Application
A fixed order SART with forced errors is a novel way to investigate relationships between performance and self-report measures of thought content.
AflaloT.ZhangC.RevechkisB.RosarioE.PouratianN.AndersenR. A. (2022). Implicit mechanisms of intention. Current Biology, 32(9), 2051–2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.03.047
2.
AitkenJ. A.PaganO.WongC. M.BayleyB.HeltonW. S.KaplanS. A. (2023). Task-related and task-unrelated thoughts in runners and equestrians: Measurement issues in evaluations of thought content. Applied Ergonomics, 110(1), Article 104011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104011
3.
AngillettaM.KubitzG.WilsonR. (2019). Self-deception in nonhumananimals: Weak crayfish escalated aggression as if they were strong. Behavioral Ecology, 30(5), 1469–1476. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz103
4.
AntrobusJ. S.SingerJ. L.GreenbergS. (1966). Studies in the stream of consciousness: Experimental enhancement and suppression of spontaneous cognitive processes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23(2), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151256602300212
5.
BediA.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2023). Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: A signal detection theory perspective. Psychological Research, 87(2), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01679-7
6.
BediA.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2024a). Response uncertainty influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: A signal detection theory perspective. Psychological Research, 88(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01847-3
7.
BediA.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2024b). Perceptual decoupling or trigger happiness: The effect of response delays and shorter presentation times on a go-no-go task with a high go prevalence. Experimental Brain Research, 242(4), 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-024-06799-7
8.
BediA.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2024c). Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is unlikely. Experimental Brain Research, 242(8), 2033–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-024-06885-w
9.
CarterL.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2013). Target predictability, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.02.002
10.
CheyneJ. A.SolmanG. J.CarriereJ. S.SmilekD. (2009). Anatomy of an error: A bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors. Cognition, 111(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.009
11.
ChristoffK.GordonA. M.SmallwoodJ.SmithR.SchoolerJ. W. (2009). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(21), 8719–8724. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900234106
12.
CorballisM. C. (2017). The evolution of language. In APA handbook of comparative psychology: Basic concepts, methods, neural substrate, and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 273–297). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000011-014
13.
CorneilleO.GawronskiB. (2024). Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(12), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z
14.
DangJ.ShawT. H.HeltonW. S. (2025). Does being away with the fairies really matter? The importance of thought content for task performance on a Go-No-Go target detection task. Applied Ergonomics, 129(1), Article 104607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104607
15.
DangJ. A.ShawT. H.McKnightP. E.HeltonW. S. (2023). A closer look at warning cues on the sustained attention to response task performance. Human Factors, 65(8), 1793–1803. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211060708
16.
DangJ. S.FigueroaI. J.HeltonW. S. (2018). You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: The Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research, 236(8), 2255–2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6
17.
DenkovaE.BrudnerE. G.ZayanK.DunnJ.JhaA. P. (2018). Attenuated face processing during mind wandering. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(11), 1691–1703. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01312
18.
DockreeP. M.BellgroveM. A.O’KeeffeF. M.MoloneyP.AimolaL.CartonS.RobertsonI. H. (2006). Sustained attention in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and healthy controls: Enhanced sensitivity with dual-task load. Experimental Brain Research, 168(1-2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0079-x
19.
HaldaneJ. B. S. (1955). Animal communication and the origin of human language. Science Progress (1933-), 43(171), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0042
20.
HancockN. J.de JouxN. R.WingreenS. C.KempS.ThomasJ.HeltonW. S. (2017). Positive post-disaster images: A daydream machine?British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 528–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12213
HeadJ.TenanM. S.TweedellA. J.LaFiandraM. E.MorelliF.WilsonK. M.HeltonW. S. (2017). Prior mental fatigue impairs marksmanship decision performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 8(1), 680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00680
23.
HeadJ.TenanM. S.TweedellA. J.WilsonK. M.HeltonW. S. (2020). Response complexity reduces errors on a response inhibition task. Human Factors, 62(5), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819852801
24.
HeltonW. S. (2025). Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is indeed unlikely: A reply to Shelat and Geisbrecht (in press). Experimental Brain Research, 243(4), 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07033-8
25.
HeltonW. S.DemberW. N.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG. (1999). Optimism, pessimism, and false failure feedback: Effects on vigilance performance. Current Psychology, 18(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-999-1006-2
26.
HumphreyB. J.NelsonX. J.HeltonW. S. (2025). A way forward for sustained attention research: Insights from the deep past. Annual Review of Psychology, 77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-012125-121408
27.
KaneM. J.SmeekensB. A.MeierM. E.WelhafM. S.PhillipsN. E. (2021). Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2372–2411. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x
28.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1), 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
29.
LangeC. G.HauptI. A. (1922). The emotions. In The emotions (Vol. 1, pp. 33–90). Williams & Wilkins Co.
30.
ManlyT.DavisonB.HeutinkJ.GallowayM.RobertsonI. H. (2000). Not enough time or not enough attention? Speed, error and self-maintained control in the Sustained Attention to Response Test (SART). Clinical Neuropsychological Assessment, 3(January), 167–177.
31.
ManlyT.OwenA. M.McAvinueL.DattaA.LewisG. H.ScottS. K.RordenC.PickardJ.RobertsonI. H. (2003). Enhancing the sensitivity of a sustained attention task to frontal damage: Convergent clinical and functional imaging evidence. Neurocase, 9(4), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1076/neur.9.4.340.15553
32.
McAvinueL.O’KeefeF.McMackinD.RobertsonI. H. (2005). Impaired sustained attention and error awareness in traumatic brain injury: Implications for insight. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 15(5), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010443000119
33.
MensenJ. M.HollandS. B.HeltonW. S.ShawT. H.PetersonM. S. (2024). Prolonging the response movement reduces commission errors in a high-go, low-no-go target detection task and composite metrics of performance miss this effect. Human Factors, 66(4), 1118–1131.
34.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.3.231
RaffaelliQ.MillsC.de StefanoN. A.MehlM. R.ChambersK.FitzgeraldS. A.WilcoxR.ChristoffK.AndrewsE. S.GrilliM. D.O’ConnorM. F.Andrews-HannaJ. R. (2021). The think aloud paradigm reveals differences in the content, dynamics and conceptual scope of resting state thought in trait brooding. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 19362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98138-x
37.
RobertsonI. H.ManlyT.AndradeJ.BaddeleyB. T.YiendJ. (1997). Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00015-8
38.
RuxtonG. D.BeauchampG. (2008). Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behavioral Ecology, 19(3), 690–693. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn020
39.
SchoolerJ. W.SmallwoodJ.ChristoffK.HandyT. C.ReichleE. D.SayetteM. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006
40.
SciaraffaN.BorghiniG.Di FlumeriG.CincottiF.BabiloniF.AricòP. (2021). Joint analysis of eye blinks and brain activity to investigate attentional demand during a visual search task. Brain Sciences, 28(5), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050562
SeliP. (2016). The attention-lapse and motor decoupling accounts of SART performance are not mutually exclusive. Consciousness and Cognition, 41(1), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.017
43.
SeliP.CheyneJ. A.SmilekD. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed-accuracy trade-offs. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.017
44.
SeliP.KaneM. J.SmallwoodJ.SchacterD. L.MailletD.SchoolerJ. W.SmilekD. (2018). Mind-wandering as a natural kind: A family-resemblances view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(6), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.010
45.
ShelatS.GiesbrechtB. (2025). Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is likely: Comment on Bedi, Russell, & Helton (2024). Experimental Brain Research, 243(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07032-9
46.
SmallwoodJ.DaviesJ. B.HeimD.FinniganF.SudberryM.O’ConnorR.ObonsawinM. (2004). Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: Task engagement and disengagement during sustained attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 657–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.09.003
47.
SullivanG. M.FeinnR. (2012). Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
48.
WeinsteinY. (2018). Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 642–661. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9
49.
WestenD. (1999). The scientific status of unconscious processes: Is Freud really dead?Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47(4), 1061–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306519904700404
50.
WhiteP. A. (2000). Causal attribution and Mill’s methods of experimental inquiry: Past, present and prospect. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164589
51.
WilsonM.de JouxN. R.FinkbeinerK. M.RussellP. N.RetzlerJ. R.HeltonW. S. (2018). Prolonging the response movement inhibits the feed-forward motor program in the Sustained Attention to Response Task. Acta Psychologica, 183(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.001
52.
ZanescoA. P.DenkovaE.BarryJ.JhaA. P. (2024). Mind wandering is associated with worsening attentional vigilance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(11), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001233
