↓ Skip to main content

On the relation of mind wandering and ADHD symptomatology

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
10 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
On the relation of mind wandering and ADHD symptomatology
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, January 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0793-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Seli, Jonathan Smallwood, James Allan Cheyne, Daniel Smilek

Abstract

Mind wandering seems to be a prototypical feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, an important emerging distinction of mind-wandering types hinges on whether a given episode of mind wandering reflects a failure of executive control (spontaneous mind wandering) or the engagement of controlled processes for internal processing (deliberate mind wandering). Here we distinguish between spontaneous and deliberate mind wandering and test the hypothesis that symptoms of ADHD are associated with the former but not the latter. We assessed ADHD symptomatology and everyday levels of deliberate and spontaneous mind wandering in two large non-clinical samples (Ns = 1,354). In addition, to provide converging evidence, we examined rates of deliberate and spontaneous mind wandering in a clinically diagnosed ADHD sample. Results provide clear evidence that spontaneous, but not deliberate, mind wandering is a central feature of ADHD symptomatology at both the clinical and non-clinical level. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding both ADHD and mind wandering.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 136 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 22%
Student > Bachelor 28 20%
Student > Master 22 16%
Researcher 19 14%
Unspecified 11 8%
Other 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 93 66%
Unspecified 17 12%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 7 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#985,258
of 13,332,915 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#198
of 1,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,416
of 292,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#10
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,332,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,624 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 292,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.