Talk:Mind-wandering

message: Hi Ed, thanks for the help with the entry.  Its a great tip to have written off line before sharing it with the community.  Thanks also for your nice comments on our work.  As I mentioned, we have  a psychological bulletin review coming out (we are about to get the proofs) I am going to incorporate that into the entry when its published, I just thought I should get one going. I can send you a copy of the proofs if you are interested.  my email is jsmallwood@psych.ubc.ca (I am finishing of a post doc at ubc before going back to aberdeen in a month or so) - feel free to email me if you like .  
Hi Jonny, I've now downloaded some of your papers, and I see that you were being modest when you said "several".  It's a nice body of work you're doing there, and I think that you should be able to incorporate more of it into the wikipedia article.  Just remember to cite your articles, just like anywhere else, and you should be fine Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I think the best thing to do from here is to focus on explaining the concepts to non-specialists. Also, you may want to do a lot of your editing offline and then upload and save changes after major edits. In that way, you can take advantage of spellcheck (typocheck) and you'll avoid what happened with this article, which is that it got RfD'd three times while you were still writing the draft.  Otherwise, you can always use preview instead of save, if you just want to see how the article is progressing. Edhubbard 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wikipedia standards require that WP:OR be avoided and therefore the use of the first person. Sincerely,  Mattisse 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of "one" is considered the first person 

message: In particular, the first reference citation seems to reference William James. However, the reference when I checked it does not mention William James, and I have never read in any of the work of William James his use of the term "Mind-wandering". Yes, William James discusses various issues of consciousness, but not "mind-wandering" as conceived in this article -- even though the concept in this article is overly broad and could include almost any researcher's work on attention. Is "mind-wandering" supposed to be a super category encompassing all topics of attention? Please correct the misleading reference.  --Mattisse 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading reference citation 

message: There is no explanation of this. In fact this article is the top result when searching for it. 
Maybe someone could write what it is, or even better, write a seperate article on this. 
193.140.194.136 (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SART, sustained attention to response 

message: I think going through the edit history (which isn't that extensive) and finding when "[e.g., 11]" and "[6]" were added manually can clarify which references were meant: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mind-wandering&diff=prev&oldid=502294794.  Edhubbard (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, feel free to do it! Ah you did it! Great job! Lova Falk talk 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which "11" and "6" 

message: Mind wandering and reading comprehension:
Mind-wandering also affects reading depending on the level of difficulty of the reading and also on a persons WMC. Kane & McVay (2012) summarize that TUTs correlate with understanding text either because (a) MW causes impairment in reading, or (b) difficulty understanding the text can cause the mind to wander. Ultimately they found that MWC directly relates to reading comprehension levels where participants with lower WMC perform worse on comprehension-based tests.Kane, M. J., & McVay, J. C. (2012). What mind wandering reveals about executive-control abilities and failures. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 348-354. 
They found that episodes of MW, especially early on in the text led to decreased identification of the villain and worse results on both factual and inferred questions. Researchers therefore concluded that when MW occurs during reading, the text is not processed with enough detail to provide for a comprehensive situation model. Furthermore both the timing and the frequency of MW help determine how much information is retained from the narrative.Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1144-1150. 
MW had a negative affect on text comprehension in more difficult readings thereby confirming with the executive-resource hypothesis. However, the research also indicated that MW occurred more frequently in the harder than in the easier reading. To explain this inconsistency, researchers attributed the second conclusion to the situation model view that states that MW increases when readers have difficulty constructing a situation model. Feng, S., D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 586-592.
--Paula Marques-Pinheiro (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cog 276 Mind-wandering plan

message: Paula Marques-Pinheiro (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References for all examples

message: The article has an especially heavy Western bias, with lines such as "The history of mind-wandering research dates back to 18th century England." 
Mind Wandering is discussed in texts such as The Tripitaka, Mahayana Sutras and the Tibetan Book of the Dead which pre-date Western thought on the topic by approximately 2000 years. Yes, academic research was conducted in the 18th century by notable scholars, but their observations were simply those conducted with a late-arriving Western lens. 
I would strongly suggest the article be corrected to reflect the long history of research concerning Mind Wandering conducted by Eastern Scholars. MrEarlGray (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Bias