↓ Skip to main content

Unaware yet reliant on attention: Experience sampling reveals that mind-wandering impedes implicit learning

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Unaware yet reliant on attention: Experience sampling reveals that mind-wandering impedes implicit learning
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13423-015-0885-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael S. Franklin, Jonathan Smallwood, Claire M. Zedelius, James M. Broadway, Jonathan W. Schooler

Abstract

Although implicit learning has been widely studied, controversy remains regarding its reliance on attentional resources. A central issue in this controversy is the question of how best to manipulate attention. The usual approach of comparing implicit learning in a serial reaction time (SRT) task under single- versus dual-task conditions is known to be problematic, because the secondary task may not only divert attention away from the primary task, but also interfere with the implicit-learning process itself. To address this confound, in the present study we used an experience-sampling instead of a dual-task approach. We assessed lapses of attention (mind-wandering) with experience-sampling thought probes during a standard implicit-learning SRT task. The results revealed a significant negative correlation between mind-wandering and implicit learning. Thus, greater task focus was associated with improved implicit sequence learning. This result suggests that, at least in the context of this SRT task, optimal implicit learning relies on attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 98 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 46%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 34 33%