4.2 Article

Mind wandering and sleep in daily life: A combined actigraphy and experience sampling study

期刊

CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2022.103447

关键词

Ecological momentary assessments (EMA); Mind -wandering; Task -unrelated thoughts; Spontaneous cognition; Total sleep time; Fragmentation index; Daily diary; Guilty-dysphoric daydreaming; Guilt; fear-of-failure daydreaming; Positive -constructive daydreaming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals who sleep poorly do not necessarily experience more task-unrelated or stimulus-independent thoughts. However, those who have more unguided thoughts tend to have greater sleep disturbances and longer sleep duration. This study highlights the importance of considering the context and features of mind wandering when examining its relationship with sleep.
Individuals who sleep poorly report spending more time mind wandering during the day. How-ever, past research has relied on self-report measures of sleep or measured mind wandering during laboratory tasks, which prevents generalization to everyday contexts. We used ambulatory assessments to examine the relations between several features of sleep (duration, fragmentation, and disturbances) and mind wandering (task-unrelated, stimulus-independent, and unguided thoughts). Participants wore a wristband device that collected actigraphy and experience -sampling data across 7 days and 8 nights. Contrary to our expectations, task-unrelated and stimulus-independent thoughts were not associated with sleep either within-or between-persons (n = 164). Instead, individual differences in unguided thoughts were associated with sleep dis-turbances and duration, suggesting that individuals who more often experience unguided train-of -thoughts have greater sleep disturbances and sleep longer. These results highlight the need to consider the context and features of mind wandering when relating it to sleep.

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

4.2
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