Advertisement

Measuring the Impact of Mind Wandering in Real Time Using an Auditory Evoked Potential

  • Colin ConradEmail author
  • Aaron Newman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 29)

Abstract

In this research-in-progress paper, we propose an experiment to investigate the neurophysiological correlates of mind wandering using electroencephalography (EEG). Auditory oddball event related potentials have been observed to be sensitive to the mind wandering state and can be used as a real-time passive measure. This has advantages over standard survey techniques because it is an objective, non-disruptive real time measure. We describe an experiment to observe the neurophysiological correlates of mind wandering in online learning environments using an auditory oddball. In doing so, we introduce a new experimental paradigm to the IS literature which could be used to extend other attention-related research.

Keywords

Auditory oddball Mind wandering Online learning EEG 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Killam and NSERC Doctoral scholarships to Colin Conrad, and an NSERC Discovery Grant to Aaron Newman. We also thank the participants of the 2017 NeuroIS training course for their feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Christoff, K., Gordon, A., Smith, R.: The role of spontaneous thought in human cognition. In: Vartanian, O., Mandel, D. (eds.) Neuroscience of Decision Making, pp. 259–284. Psychology Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smallwood, J.: Mind wandering and attention. In: Fawcett, J., Risk, E., Kingstone, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Attention, pp. 233–255. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson, K., Korn, J.H.: Attention during lectures: beyond ten minutes. Teach. Psychol. 34(2), 85–89 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindquest, S.I., McLean, J.P.: Daydreaming and its correlates in an educational environment. Learn. Individ. Differ. 21(2), 158–167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hillyard, S.A., Vogel, E.K., Luck, S.J.: Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 353(1373), 1257–1270 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braboszcz, C., Delorme, A.: Lost in thoughts: neural markers of low alertness during mind wandering. Neuroimage 54(3), 3040–3047 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schooler, J.W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T.C., Reichle, E.D., Sayette, M.A.: Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15(7), 319–326 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smallwood, J., Andrews-Hanna, J.: Not all minds that wander are lost: the importance of a balanced perspective on the mind wandering state. Front. Psychol. 4(441) (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan, Y., Davis, F., Koh, C.: Exploring mind wandering in a technological setting. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moss, J., Schunn, C.D., Schneider, W., McNamara, D.S.: The nature of mind wandering during reading varies with the cognitive control demands of the reading strategy. Brain Res. 1539, 48–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smallwood, J., Schooler, J.W.: The restless mind. Psychol. Bull. 132(6), 946–958 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schooler, J.W., Reichle, E.D., Halpern, D.V.: Zoning out while reading: evidence for dissociations between experience and metaconsciousness. In: Levin, D.T. (ed.) Thinking and Seeing: Visual Metacognition in Adults and Children, pp. 204–226. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Léger, P.M., Sénecal, S., Courtemanche, F., Oritz de Guinea, A., Titah, R., Fredette, M., Labonte-LeMoyne, E.: Precision is in the eye of the beholder: application of eye fixation-related potentials to information systems research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 15(10), 651–678 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimson, E.: Introduction to Machine Learning. YouTube (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peirce, J.W.: Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Front. Neuroinformatics 2(10) (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gramfort, A., Luessi, M., Larson, E., Engemann, D.A., Strohmeier, D., Brodbeck, C., Parkkonen, L., Hämäläinen, M.S.: MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. Neuroimage 86, 446–460 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delorme, A., Makeig, S.: EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134(1), 9–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Douglas, K., Tremblay, A., Newman, A.: Measuring the N400 during naturalistic conversation: an EEG hyperscanning study. Poster to be presented at the neurobiology of language meeting, Quebec City, 18–22 Aug (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tremblay, A., Flick, G., Blanchard, A., Cochingyan, E., Dickie, K., Macgillivray, K., Ashraf Mahmoud-Ahmed, H., Schwartz, S., Sher, C., Asp, E., Newman, A.J.: Free, unscripted conversation with MEG recordings is a viable experimental paradigm for research into language processing. Paper presented at the 40th Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association (APLA-40), 28–29 Oct 2016, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Canada (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations