Conducting the train of thought: working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task.

By Jennifer C. McVay, M. Kane. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2009

797 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0f978459cf6692ca7ac2f80373dabc5739c82d2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Measuring Working Memory Capacity With Automated Complex Span Tasks (2012, methodology): “Test-retest reliabilities Operation (N = 78) Symmetry (N = 138) Reading (N = 138) Absolute score .77 .62 .76 Partial score .83 .77 .82 European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2012; Vol. 28(3):164–171 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing”
Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model (2010, background): “Finally, Poole and Kane (2009) suggested that attention control is needed to sustain attention on task and prevent lapses of attention that could hinder task performance (e.g., Kane et al., 2007; McVay & Kane, 2009).”
Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture (2012, background): “…time on task effects on mind wandering have rarely been the focus of previous research, it has been demonstrated that mind wandering increases with increases in time on task (McVay & Kane, 2009; Teasdale et al., 1995; Smallwood, Riby, Heim, & Davies, 2006; Smallwood, Obonsawin, & Reid, 2003).”
The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. (2015, background): “Similarly, the executive control hypothesis (Smallwood & Schooler 2006) does not explain why high working memory reduces mind wandering in demanding tasks (McVay & Kane 2009, 2010; Unsworth & McMillan 2013).”
Does Mind Wandering Reflect Executive Function or Executive Failure? Comment on and (2010, methodology): “…with the Smallwood and Schooler (2006) view are that TUTs increase with fatigue (e.g., Antrobus, Coleman, & Singer, 1967; Antrobus et al., 1966; McVay & Kane, 2009; Smallwood et al., 2004; Smallwood, Heim, Riby, & Davies, 2005; Teasdale et al., 1995) and with alcohol consumption (Finnigan,…”
Storage capacity explains fluid intelligence but executive control does not (2012, result): “In another go/ no-go study (McVay & Kane, 2009), mixed results on inhibition-WMC link were observed, as significant correlations were found only for some versions of the task (for a discussion see Redick et al., 2011).”
The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: a review. (2013, background): “…meanderings come at quite a cost, significantly disrupting performance on a great range of activities ranging from the banal (e.g., simple vigilance tasks; Allan Cheyne et al., 2009; McVay & Kane, 2009; Smallwood et al., 2004) to the most demanding (performance on the SAT; Mrazek et al., 2012).”
Mind-wandering is unguided attention: accounting for the “purposeful” wanderer (2016, background): “As an operational definition, this account is widely accepted (e.g. see Christoff 2012; McVay and Kane 2009).”
Inspired by Distraction (2012, background): “Although mind wandering may be linked to compromised performance on an external task (Barron et al., 2011; McVay & Kane, 2009) and may be a signature of unhappiness (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010), it may also serve as a foundation for creative inspiration.”
Lapses in sustained attention and their relation to executive control and fluid abilities: An individual differences investigation (2010, background): “Furthermore, McVay and Kane (2009) recently demonstrated that rates of mind wandering partially mediated the relation between WMC and sustained attention.”
Quantifying Inhibitory Control as Externalizing Proneness: A Cross-Domain Model (2018, positive): “…of inhibitiondisinhibition were derived from lab-based inhibitory control tasks similar to those used in prior studies to assess individual differences in executive functioning (Miyake et al., 2000; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Young et al., 2009) or attentional control (McVay & Kane, 2009, 2012).”
Why the Global Availability of Mind Wandering Necessitates Resource Competition: Reply to McVay and Kane (2010) (2010, background): “Despite the systematic failure for either SIT or TUT to encompass mind wandering in a satisfactory context-independent manner, for some time theorists have suspected they may share similar underlying processes because they are usually directed to the concerns of the individual (Antrobus, 1999; Kling”
The Relationship Between Working Memory Capacity and Executive Functioning: Evidence for a Common Executive Attention Construct (2010, background): “Thus, the current article focuses on investigating the degree to which EF and WMC tasks share a common underlying attentional ability, which we label executive attention, following the framework of Engle, Kane, and colleagues (cf. Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2002; McVay & Kane, 2009).”
The Middle Way: Finding the Balance between Mindfulness and Mind-Wandering (2014, background): “Although mind-wandering may be linked to compromised performance on a variety of experimenter-defined tasks (Barron, Riby, Greer, & Smallwood, 2011; McVay & Kane, 2009) and may be associated with depressed mood (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010), it may also serve as a wellspring of creative ideas.”