↓ Skip to main content

Mind wandering in text comprehension under dual-task conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mind wandering in text comprehension under dual-task conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00682
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Dixon, Henry Li

Abstract

In two experiments, subjects responded to on-task probes while reading under dual-task conditions. The secondary task was to monitor the text for occurrences of the letter e. In Experiment 1, reading comprehension was assessed with a multiple-choice recognition test; in Experiment 2, subjects recalled the text. In both experiments, the secondary task replicated the well-known "missing-letter effect" in which detection of e's was less effective for function words and the word "the." Letter detection was also more effective when subjects were on task, but this effect did not interact with the missing-letter effect. Comprehension was assessed in both the dual-task conditions and in control single-task conditions. In the single-task conditions, both recognition (Experiment 1) and recall (Experiment 2) was better when subjects were on task, replicating previous research on mind wandering. Surprisingly, though, comprehension under dual-task conditions only showed an effect of being on task when measured with recall; there was no effect on recognition performance. Our interpretation of this pattern of results is that subjects generate responses to on-task probes on the basis of a retrospective assessment of the contents of working memory. Further, we argue that under dual-task conditions, the contents of working memory is not closely related to the reading processes required for accurate recognition performance. These conclusions have implications for models of text comprehension and for the interpretation of on-task probe responses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 27%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 40%
Linguistics 4 7%
Computer Science 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,601,988
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,808
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,401
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#428
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.