Objective markers of sustained attention fluctuate independently of mind-wandering reports.

Abstract

Sustained attention fluctuates between periods of good and poor attentional performance. Two major methodologies exist to study these fluctuations: an objective approach that identifies "in-the-zone" states of consistent response times (RTs) and "out-of-the-zone" states of erratic RTs and a subjective approach that asks participants whether they are on-task or mind wandering. Although both approaches effectively predict attentional lapses, it remains unclear whether they capture the same or distinct attentional fluctuations. We combined both approaches within a single sustained attention task requiring frequent responses and response inhibition to rare targets to explore their consistency (N = 40). Behaviorally, both objective out-of-the-zone and subjective mind-wandering states were associated with more attentional lapses. However, the percentage of time spent out-of-the-zone did not differ between on-task and mind-wandering periods and both objective and subjective states independently predicted error-proneness, suggesting that the two methods do not capture the same type of attention fluctuations. Whereas attentional preparation before correct inhibitions was greater during out-of-the-zone compared with in-the-zone periods, preparation did not differ by subjective state. In contrast, posterror slowing differed by both objective and subjective states, but in opposite directions: slowing was observed when participants were objectively out-of-the-zone or subjectively on-task. Overall, our results provide evidence that objective and subjective approaches capture distinct attention fluctuations during sustained attention tasks. Integrating both objective and subjective measures is crucial for fully understanding the mechanisms underlying our ability to remain focused.