4.7 Review

Electrophysiological markers of mind wandering: A systematic review

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 258, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119372

关键词

Mind wandering; Task-unrelated thought; EEG; Systematic review; Event-related potential; Frequency band; Spectral features; Machine learning applications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Examining mind wandering through EEG studies revealed a reduction in amplitude of canonical ERP components as the most reliable marker, with spectral findings indicating increased low frequency activity and decreased high frequency activity during mind wandering, modulated by task context.
The ability to mentally wander away from the external environment is a remarkable feature of the human mind. Although recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in examining mind wandering using EEG, there is no comprehensive review that summarizes and accounts for the variable findings. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review that synthesizes evidence from EEG studies that examined the electrophysiological measures of mind wandering. Our search yielded 42 studies that met eligibility criteria. The reviewed literature converges on a reduction in the amplitude of canonical ERP components (i.e., P1, N1 and P3) as the most reliable markers of mind wandering. Spectral findings were less robust, but point towards greater activity in lower frequency bands, (i.e., delta, theta, and alpha), as well as a decrease in beta band activity, during mind wandering compared to on-task states. The variability in these findings appears to be modulated by the task context. To integrate these findings, we propose an electrophysiological account of mind wandering that explains how the brain supports this inner experience. Conclusions drawn from this work will inform future endeavours in basic science to map out electrophysiological patterns underlying mind wandering and in translational science using EEG to predict the occurrence of this phenomenon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据