Fig 1.
Behavioral results as a function of attention state.
(A) Mean response time was slower during mind wandering (p = 0.076). (B) No difference was observed in accuracy between the two attention states. Error bars = standard error of the mean; OT = on task; MW = mind wandering.
Table 1.
ANOVAs on ERP components.
Fig 2.
N1 was averaged across FC1, FCz and FC2 (left panel), whereas P3 was averaged across P1, Pz and P2 (right panel). Univariate analyses indicate reduced N1 in response to target tones during MW relative to OT periods. OT = on task, MW = mind wandering.
Fig 3.
Model performance per subject, as measured by AUC and MCC.
AUC performance for each subject for both models (SVM and logistic regression) is shown in top panel; chance is noted by the black horizontal line at 0.5. MCC performance for each subject is shown in bottom panel; chance is noted by the black horizontal line at 0. AUC = area under the curve; MCC = Matthews correlation coefficient; SVM = support vector machine.
Table 2.
Model evaluation of person-independent classification performance.
Table 3.
Confusion matrices of person-independent models.
Table 4.
Model performance for individual features.