standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | task-unrelated thought (mind-wandering) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: may reflect | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The four-trial pre-probe window is an a priori choice, since the true onset of an attentional shift is unknown. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the attentional-state assignment: ALTHOUGH THE TEMPORAL DYNAMICS AND THE EXACT ONSET OF ATTENTIONAL SHIFTS REMAIN UNKNOWN AND DIFFICULT TO ASSESS, WE CHOSE A WINDOW OF FOUR SART TRIALS PRIOR TO A THOUGHT PROBE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The self-caught probe condition structurally lacks on-task reports, so the two condition pairs are not symmetric. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between the self-caught and probe-caught conditions: PARTICIPANTS WERE ONLY INSTRUCTED TO TRIGGER A SC PROBE WHEN THEY CAUGHT THEMSELVES OFF-TASK AND AS A RESULT THE SC CONDITION LACKED ON-TASK REPORTS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Trial-count exclusions cut the on-task versus off-task comparison to 15 participants. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the PC_OT/MW comparison only: PARTICIPANTS THAT DID NOT HAVE AT LEAST 8 TRIALS WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHICH REDUCED THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS FOR THE PC_OT/MW PAIR TO 15 | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The most established marker in this literature does not distinguish the two states the paper is about: it is attenuated off-task whether the thought was intentional or not. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a P3 attenuation as evidence about the KIND of off-task state: this study reports the P3 attenuated during off-task states regardless of whether they were intentional | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The artefact-rejection threshold is a choice, and the authors state which way they wanted it to err. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the artefact-cleaned data in this study: components were rejected at a 95% probability threshold chosen to favour preserving neural activity, so the cleaning errs toward keeping signal | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Channels were excluded on a stated susceptibility argument rather than on measured artefact. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the channel coverage of these averages: channels near the face were excluded on the grounds of higher susceptibility to artefacts | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper's central distinction is instrument-relative and the abstract says so in consecutive sentences: the P3 treats deliberate and spontaneous off-task thought as one state, alpha power and phase-locking treat them as two. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | probe-caught sampling prompts interrupting the task pseudo-randomly after 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: participants anticipating the probe and preparing an answer - a fixed interval would turn a measure of spontaneous thought into a measure of expectation · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · task unrelated thought Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The evidence was THE PAPER'S OWN TITLE, verbatim and whole - 'Distinct neural markers for intentional and unintentional…'. The replacement is the sentence that introduces the concept and both of its subtypes with the abbreviations the paper then uses, dTUT and sTUT, which is what a concepts row should be anchored to. Same 0x08 cause as the other three rows in this batch. also in: task unrelated thought | concepts[0] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | dTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dTUT | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | P3 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: P3 | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | alpha power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: alpha power | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sTUT | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | task-unrelated thought - DELIBERATE (dTUT): the off-task state engaged in intentionally, one of two kinds the study separates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | task-unrelated thought - AS THE P3 SEES IT: not two kinds at all, since the component is attenuated off-task regardless of intention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | theta ITPC - a phase-coherence quantity INTERPRETED as a measure of attentional stability, so the construct enters by interpretation rather than by measurement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | off-task thought - framed by the field it comes from as 'a family of states with overlapping experiential neural and cognitive features' rather than as a category with members Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | P3 reduction - offered as an index of EITHER perceptual decoupling OR the level of attention to the task, in one clause, without adjudication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → prior ERP studies of reduced stimulus processing during task-unrelated thinking (refs 26, 36, 38, 39) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → component process accounts of ongoing thought Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → prior work linking spontaneous off-task thought to low external alertness and low executive control (ref 117) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | dTUT —distinct-from→ sTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH INSTRUMENT IS ASKED. Alpha power and cortical phase-locking separate them; the P3 does not, being attenuated off-task regardless of intention. The distinction the paper's title asserts holds on two measures and fails on the one the literature relies on most · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: WHETHER THESE ARE TWO KINDS OF THOUGHT OR ONE DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON WHICH MEASURE IS ASKED, and the paper's abstract puts both answers in consecutive sentences. The P3 - the literature's most established marker, and the record already carries a limitation saying so - is attenuated off-task 'regardless of whether they were intentional or not', so on that instrument the two states are ONE. Alpha power and cortical phase-locking separate them. A category claim that is true of one instrument and false of another, in one dataset.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'deliberate' and 'spontaneous off-task' thought, not 'dTUT' / 'sTUT'. | concept_edges[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | P3 —operationalised-as→ task unrelated thought Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: The P3 reduction is read as 'an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention…' - TWO different readings offered in one clause, joined by 'or', and the paper does not choose between them.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but P3 amplitude 'can be considered an INDEX of' perceptual decoupling or attention to the task; operationalised-as task-unrelated thought is loose. also in: P3 · task unrelated thought | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | alpha power —operationalised-as→ dTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but increased alpha power was LINKED TO deliberate off-task thoughts; operationalised-as is loose. also in: alpha power · dTUT | concept_edges[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | paired-samples t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired-samples t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cluster-based permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cluster-based permutation test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Monte-Carlo randomisation null distribution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Greenhouse-Geisser sphericity correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | significance level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: significance level | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | independent component analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independent component analysis | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean and standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean and standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Probe-caught off-task periods showed reduced P1 and P2 amplitude over the right parieto-occipital site PO4 and reduced amplitude over parieto-central sites in the P3 window (268-388 ms). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Alpha power in the trials preceding a report was significantly higher before deliberate off-task thought (1.54 dB) than before spontaneous off-task thought (0.58 dB). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Inter-trial phase coherence was significantly greater before deliberate than before spontaneous off-task thought (.52 vs .45 across all averaged channels). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The P2 component was significantly smaller before spontaneous than before deliberate off-task thought at both PO3 and PO4. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Fronto-central delta/theta power at FCz was significantly lower relative to baseline before off-task reports (-2.69 dB) than before on-task reports (-1.89 dB). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The stimulus-evoked alpha-beta event-related desynchronization differed by attentional state, reaching -2.27 dB before off-task reports versus -1.13 dB before on-task reports. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Inter-trial phase coherence did not distinguish on-task from off-task states in any of the three electrode sets. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Tonic (non-evoked) alpha power showed no significant on-task versus off-task difference at any electrode selection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Increased alpha power and phase-locking went with deliberate off-task thought, while reduced evoked sensory responses prevailed in spontaneous off-task episodes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | PC probe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: PC probe | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SC probe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SC probe | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | component process account of ongoing thought Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceptual decoupling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual decoupling | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dTUT | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sTUT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sTUT | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | component amplitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: component amplitude | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inter-stimulus interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-stimulus interval | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prestimulus baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prestimulus baseline | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 26 — participants recorded with EEG during the fixed SART Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 71.4% — share of the average 65.3 thought probes per participant that were self-caught rather than probe-caught Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 11% — proportion of SART trials that were no-go targets (the digit 6) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2315 msec — fixed inter-stimulus interval between SART digits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 9.3 sec — length of the four-trial pre-probe window taken to reflect the reported attentional state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 512 Hz — sampling rate of the 64-channel EEG recording Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 19 and 18 — subjects retained for the ERP analysis of the on-task/off-task pair and of the deliberate/spontaneous pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t(17)=2.25 p=.038 — test of the alpha-power difference between deliberate and spontaneous off-task pre-trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | .52 vs .45 — mean inter-trial phase coherence before deliberate versus spontaneous off-task reports across all averaged channels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.