Forgetting or Blanking? Evaluating the Role of a Forgot Option in a Thought Sampling Method for Mind Blanking Research

Forgetting or Blanking? Evaluating the Role of a Forgot Option in a Thought Sampling Method for Mind Blanking Research | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Forgetting or Blanking? Evaluating the Role of a Forgot Option in a Thought Sampling Method for Mind Blanking Research Toshikazu Kawagoe, Keiichi Onoda, Shinpei Yoshimura This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Mind blanking describes a state of consciousness in which a person reports an absence of thought, sensation, or awareness. Although thought sampling methods (TSMs) have been used to capture mind blanking during sustained attention tasks, concerns remain about whether individuals' reports of mind blanking during the task reflect genuine blankness or failures in memory retrieval. Methods We investigated whether adding a 'Forgot' option to a TSM probes improves the interpretability of mind-blanking assessments. Japanese participants (n = 183) completed a sustained attention to response task (SART) under two probe conditions: one with five common categorical options and another with an added sixth 'Forgot' option. A within-subject crossover design allowed for a direct comparison of the results in each condition. Results The participants' responses demonstrated that the 'Forgot' option was selected infrequently, especially in the first session, but its inclusion clarified introspective reporting. The participants' behavioral performance (represented by the hit response time, variability, and d-prime values) was unaffected by the probe condition, suggesting no disruption. A correlation analysis revealed the expected associations between the participants' reports of mind-wandering (MW) during the SART and questionnaire-based trait MW scores across both conditions. In contrast, the participants' reports of mind blanking during the SART were related to the trait MB scores only when the response option 'Forgot' was included. Conclusions These results indicate that the 'Forgot' option helps distinguish genuine mind blanking from memory lapses without influencing an individual's behavioral performance, thus refining the taxonomy of experiential states. This methodological refinement enhances the precision of mind-blanking measurements and offers a practical tool for studying cognitive absence. mind-blanking thought sampling method number of options sustained attention to response task forgetting Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Much of cognitive science has focused on the contents of thought, i.e., what we think, why we think it, and how attention fluctuates, but there are moments when the human mind appears to contain nothing at all. These episodes, often described as "mind blanking (MB)," reflect a state in which a person reports an absence of conscious awareness and is devoid of sensory input, bodily sensations, and identifiable thoughts [ 1 ]. Although the MB state was mentioned in early studies [ 2 , 3 ], MB remained largely unexplored due to its elusive nature and to methodological challenges such as how to empirically capture a moment defined by absence. Ward and Wegner's seminal work [ 1 ] provided a conceptual and empirical foundation for MB, distinguishing it from mind wandering (MW), which also involves disengagement from external stimuli but typically retains internal thought content. Ward and Wegner used a thought sampling method (TSM), asking participants to report their exact thoughts retrospectively just prior to a probe presented randomly during a tedious challenge such as a 'sustained attention to a response task' (SART). Their findings demonstrated that MB is not merely a variant of MW; rather, it is a distinct cognitive state. Since then, the research has expanded to examine MB's clinical relevance and neural underpinnings. For example, Van den Driessche et al. [ 4 ] reported that individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) described experiencing MB more frequently compared to control subjects, and that stimulant medication reduced the frequency of MB moments to normative levels. Neuroimaging studies have also begun to characterize MB's neural signature, with findings suggesting reduced activity in regions such as Broca's area and the hippocampus [ 5 ]. More recent work indicated that this reduced activity or deactivation is not limited to the specific areas; instead, whole-brain deactivations precede the MB experiences [ 6 ] and also precede overall positive interareal-phase coherence that is akin to deep sleep during prolonged MB episodes [ 7 ]. Despite these advances, methodological questions remain. One question concerns the interpretation of MB reports in TSMs. Some methodological issues concerning TSM have been described including issues that may lead to response biases although TSMs are easy and convenient to conduct ( for a review, see [ 8 ]). Although the rates of MB reported by study participants have ranged from 3% [ 7 ] to 15% [ 1 ] as measured by a TSM during an SART, how accurately are individuals able to report MB? Moreover, is it possible that MB reports reflect a failure in memory retrieval? The authors of a 2024 study reported that a certain number of people, especially individuals from the U.S., indicated that they could not understand and/or had never experienced a MB blank state in their lives [ 9 ]. They also described difficulty in discriminating MB from sleepiness and/or dozing off, based on their observation of a significant correlation between trait MB and daily sleepiness. In addition, even though a TSM targets the moment just before the probe is administered, the reliance on retrospective recall may be demanding for older individuals. For example, individuals who have problems related to their subjective memory (which are frequently detected in elderly people) may forget what they have just read or heard [ 10 ]. People also experience a so-called "white dream" in which they know that they dreamed of something but cannot recall what [ 11 ]. The present study addressed this ambiguity by systematically investigating whether the inclusion of a 'forgot' option in MB probes enhances the validity and interpretability of MB assessments. By disentangling memory failure from blank cognitive states, we sought to refine the measurements of MB and to clarify the boundaries of MB within the spectrum of conscious experience. Methods Participants The study participants were recruited via a data collection agency (CrowdWorks: https://crowdworks.co.jp/en ). We aimed to recruit 200 participants, based on three considerations. (1) Prior online studies using a SART on platforms such as MTurk and Prolific typically analyzed samples in the range of 100–200 participants (e;g;, [ 12 , 13 ]). (2) Online experiments are known to incur substantial data loss due to failed attention checks or inadequate task performance, with exclusion rates of approx. 15%–30% being common. (3) MB tends to occur at relatively low base rates compared to MW, with only ~ 15% of probe responses typically classified as MB [ 1 ]. We thus set a recruitment goal of 200 participants and ultimately obtained usable data from 203 participants who were thought to be naïve to the concept of MB. Among the 203 participants, 20 were excluded due to their satisficing behavior, fast response, or low correct rate based on a common standard, i.e., the reaction time (RT) < the mean – 3*standard deviations (SD); hit rate 0.5. A final total of 183 Japanese participants was thus used for the present analyses (mean age: 43.6, ranged from 21 to 70 [SD: 8.9]; 146 women). Informed consent was received from all participants. The sustained attention to response task (SART) with the experience sampling method We administered an SART to the participants in order to assess fluctuations in their sustained attention and momentary experiential states. Each participant was presented with a continuous stream of single-digit numbers (1–9), each displayed centrally on a computer monitor at 100px font for 1500 ms. Each digit was followed by a fixation cross (+) presented for 1000 ms. The participant was instructed to press the computer's spacebar for all digits except the number 3, which served as the No-Go stimulus requiring response inhibition. To capture the participants' internal states during this task, we incorporated a TSM that uses graphical probes. At random timing, the participant was presented with a probe consisting of either five or six images, each representing a distinct experiential category (Fig. 1 ). The participants received prior instruction regarding the cognitive content represented by each image. The five options were: (1) Focused attention (Focus), (2) Task-related thoughts (TRTs), (3) External distraction (ED), (4) MW, and (5) MB. These five states were determined based on the common classification of the mental states described by van den Driessche et al. [ 14 ]. The six-options condition added a sixth option, i.e., 'Forgot,' which allowed participants to indicate that they could not recall or verbalize their mental state prior to the probe. The participants selected the image that best described their mental state immediately preceding the probe by clicking directly on the image. Following this choice, the participants also described whether they felt 'sleepy' and if so to what degree just before the probe, by responding on a nine-point Likert scale. The task was administered by a crossover design with two sessions. Half of the participants experienced the five-option condition first, followed by the six-option condition, and the other half of the participants experienced the conditions in the reverse order. The SART lasted approx. 15 min, and the number of probes was 22 (5% of the total number of trials). A within-subject crossover design was used in which each participant completed two options, receiving both conditions (five- and six-options) in counterbalanced order. The order of condition presentation (5→6 vs. 6→5) was randomized across the participants. This design allowed for the direct comparison of treatment effects within individuals, thereby controlling for inter-subject variability and increasing the statistical power. Questionnaires We also investigated the association between the results obtained with the TSM and trait-level indices of MW and MB, anticipating significant positive correlations between the frequency of MW and MB reports and their corresponding trait measures. Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) The Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) is a single-factor questionnaire that assesses an individual's tendency towards MW [ 15 ]. Its total score ranges from 5 to 30 points, with higher scores indicating higher levels of MW tendency. The Japanese version of the MWQ used in this study was that of Kajimura and Nomura [ 16 ]. Mind Blanking Questionnaire (MBQ) The MB Questionnaire (MBQ) was developed to assess the MB tendency at the trait level, and it is patterned after the MWQ [ 9 ]. The MBQ was created and validated in both Japanese and English, showing measurement invariance across languages, genders, and age groups. The total score ranges from 5 to 30 points, with higher scores indicating higher levels of trait MB. Statistical analyses We conducted a quasi-binomial logistic regression analysis to assess the effects of the various options and the sessions on the reported frequencies of the mental states. Given the presence of overdispersion in which the variance of the response exceeds the mean, a quasi-binomial family was specified in order to adjust the standard errors accordingly. The dependent variable was the proportion of reported mental states (e.g., Focus, MW, MB) out of the total number of probes per participant and condition. The external distraction (ED) category was designated as the reference level, given that it was the least frequently chosen category and exhibited minimal variation across experimental conditions. Model 1 included fixed effects for mental state, the number of Options (5 and 6), and the Session (1st and 2nd), along with their full factorial interactions for an examination of the carry-over effect as the experiment had a cross-over design. Model 2 added age to the factors examined in Model 1, and Model 3 added sleepiness to the factors examined in Model 1. We calculated the McFadden pseudo-R 2 value to assess the explanatory power of the models relative to a null model. For the behavioral data, we calculated the response time for hits (hit RT) and the d-prime value at the probe level, which reflected the participants' immediate cognitive state at the time of the probe. Specifically, for the probe-level analysis, behavioral measures were computed using the three trials that immediately preceded each probe. This approach allowed us to directly link the participants' mental-state reports to the temporally proximal behavioral performance, while also balancing the need for temporal precision with a sufficient amount of data for analysis. To compare the performance across Options, Sessions, and States, a linear mixed model was used to estimate the effects. This approach enabled us to account for individual variability as a random effect while isolating the influences of mental state and task conditions on the behavioral performance. Finally, we conducted rank-order correlation analyses among the external psychological scales and the TSM performance to verify the trait-state association. Results The mean frequencies (± SE) of reported mental states across conditions are depicted in Fig. 2 , which clearly indicates that most of the participants did not choose the 'Forgot' option, especially in session 1; the frequency of the Forgot option was 2.2 ± 0.5% in session 1 and 7.2 ± 1.2% in session 2. The direct comparison revealed a significant difference between the sessions: t[73] = 8.96 (p < 0.001). Among the other five options, a similar pattern was observed between the five- and six-option conditions: Focus was reported most frequently, followed by TRT, ED, MB, and MW, in that order. The logistic regression analysis (Model 1) showed significantly higher log-odds of the participants' mental state being reported as Focus (β = 1.88 [OR = 6.57, 95%CI = 4.64–9.46], t = 10.39, p < 0.001) or TRT (β = 0.56 [OR = 1.75, 95%CI: 1.21–2.58], t = 2.89, p = 0.004) relative to the baseline category (i.e., ED). Certain interaction terms could not be estimated in our dataset; this occurred because there were no observations of the Forgot state in the five-option condition. Such empty cells in the design matrix create perfect collinearity, rendering the corresponding parameters non-estimable. We thus could not estimate the effect of 'Forgot × 6-option' and 'Forgot × 6-option × 2nd session' interactions. It is noteworthy that, even with the absence of the Forgot option in half of the trials (i.e., in the five-option condition), the coefficient for the Forgot option was not significant (β = −0.64 [OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.26–1.01], t = − 1.84, p = 0.065), indicating that we obtained no reliable evidence of a difference from the category ED, which is one of the common choices in TSMs [ 14 ]. The result of a complemental one-sample one-tailed t-test indicated that the proportion of the Forgot response was significantly selected across participants (t[182] = 6.99, p 0.327), and Session (1st vs. 2nd session: β = −0.21 [OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.51–1.28], t = − 0.90, p = 0.37) and its interactions with each choice (ps > 0.106), indicating that there was no carry-over effect in the data. No other significant interaction was identified in Model 1 (Pseudo-R 2 McF = 0.39). Model 2 incorporated age as a fixed effect together with State and Options to examine the proportions of the reported mental states. Although Model 2 did not surpass the exploratory power of Model 1 (Pseudo-R 2 McF = 0.38), age significantly influenced the participants' Focus reports (β = 0.03 [OR = 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01–1.05], t = 2.64, p = 0.008), indicating that the older participants were more likely to report being in a focused state. No significant main effect of Options or its interaction was observed. Model 3 excluded age and instead included sleepiness as a predictor. Although it did not outperform Models 1 and 2 (Pseudo-R 2 McF = 0.41), sleepiness interacted significantly with Focus (β = −0.27 [OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.67–0.82], t = − 3.62, p < 0.001), indicating that a greater degree of sleepiness was associated with a reduced likelihood of reporting a focused state compared to the reference state. Again, no significant main effect of Options or interaction effect was detected. We next examined whether the presence of the Forgot option influenced the participants' task performance. The model specification was identical to that of Model 1, except that the dependent variable was replaced with an alternative measure of performance. The behavioral data could not be explained by the state or its interactions with Options and Sessions (the marginal R 2 values were 0.004, 0.004, and 0.091 for the hit RT, its SD, and d-prime, respectively), while the individual difference could explain a certain amount of the hit RT (conditional R 2 s = 0.502) but not the SD of the RT or the d-prime (the conditional R 2 s were 0.114 and 0.153, respectively). No significant effect of options or sessions or their interaction on the hit RT, its SD, and d-prime was observed (ps > 0.167; Fig. 3 ). As further detailed in the Supplementary Material ( see Table S1 for the values of the hit RT, Table S2 for the SD values, and Table S3 for the d-prime data), the results indicate that the Option did not affect the participants' performance in any state. Finally, we examined the association between the frequency of reported mental states obtained by the TSM and the participants' responses on the trait-level psychological scales, i.e., the MWQ and MBQ. The expected association was confirmed across both Options conditions for mind wandering, whereas it varied between Options for MB (Table 1 ). Table 1 Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (rho, ρ) and 95%CIs between the frequency of reported mental states and the trait‑level questionnaire scores obtained by the 183 participants. MWQ: mind wandering questionnaire, .MBQ: mind blanking questionnaire. Option Mind wandering–MWQ [95%CI] Mind blanking–MBQ [95%CI] Five-option 0.186 [0.042–0.322] 0.009 [− 0.136 to 0.154] Six-option 0.189 [0.045–0.325] 0.182 [0.037–0.318] Discussion We investigated whether the inclusion of a 'Forgot' option in thought sampling probes could improve the interpretability of MB reports by distinguishing "pure" blank states from memory retrieval failures. Although the results of this study demonstrated that the Forgot option was selected infrequently overall by the participants — particularly in the first session — the presence of the Forgot option revealed subtle but meaningful patterns in introspective reporting. First, the low frequency of Forgot responses, especially in this study's initial session, suggests that the participants rarely defaulted to this option. This may reflect a genuine ability to recall mental states under typical conditions. However, the significant result of the one-sample t-test confirms that the Forgot option was meaningfully selected across the participants, indicating that memory failure is a non-negligible component of introspective experience. Importantly, the logistic regression revealed no significant difference between the Forgot option and the baseline category (i.e., external distraction, one of the common choices in TSMs [ 14 ]), which suggests that Forgot responses may occupy a certain amount of an individual's mental status during an SART. The absence of significant effects of the Options and Sessions suggests that the inclusion of the Forgot option did not systematically distort the distribution of the other mental states. This is particularly relevant given prior concerns about response biases in thought sampling methods [ 8 ]. In addition, the behavioral data (i.e., the hit RT, RT variability, and d-prime) did not vary significantly across the conditions. These results lend credibility to the inclusion of the Forgot option as a meaningful category, rather than a disruptive element. Our finding that Focus and Task-related thought were the most frequently reported options and the relatively low frequencies of mind wandering and MB in this study align with the SART study of Japanese subjects by Kawagoe and Kase [ 17 ]. We also observed that older adults were more likely to report being focused, and that increased sleepiness was associated with reduced focus, consistent with prior investigations [ 18 , 19 ]. Our trait-level analyses revealed expected associations between the participants' reports of mind wandering and their MWQ scores across both probe conditions, validating the introspective sensitivity of the task administered in this study. The magnitude of state–trait associations in mind-wandering has been reported to be modest, typically around r = 0.2–0.35 [15, 20, 21]. The most noteworthy finding of the present study is that, in contrast, MB reports were only associated with MBQ scores in the six-option condition, suggesting that the Forgot option may have clarified the boundaries of MB by absorbing ambiguous responses. This supports our current hypothesis that MB, as traditionally measured, may conflate genuine blankness with memory lapses, particularly in populations with subjective memory complaints or cultural unfamiliarity with the concept. Taken together, our findings suggest that the inclusion of a Forgot option enhances the interpretive clarity of MB assessments without introducing systematic bias. By refining the taxonomy of experiential states, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of MB and its measurement. The Forgot option offers a practical tool for disentangling introspective uncertainty from genuine blankness, especially in populations whose memory reliability or metacognitive access may be compromised. Future research should explore the generalizability of this study's findings across cultural contexts and clinical populations, and further investigations should examine the neural correlates of Forgot versus MB states by using neuroimaging or electrophysiological methods. Ultimately, improving the granularity of thought sampling not only deepens our grasp of cognitive lapses; it will also enhance the methodological precision with which we study the boundaries of conscious experience. Despite these contributions, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the frequency of Forgot responses was relatively low, particularly in the initial session, which may limit the statistical power to detect subtle effects or interactions. Second, although the inclusion of the Forgot option was designed to disentangle memory failure from MB, the retrospective nature of the TSM still relies on the participants' metacognitive access and interpretive judgment, which may vary across individuals. Third, the study was conducted with a Japanese population that was recruited online, and cultural or linguistic factors may influence the interpretation and reportability of MB and Forgot experiences. Finally, although this study's behavioral measures did not show significant variation across conditions, the absence of valid neurophysiological and/or ecological data limits our ability to validate the experiential categories with objective markers. These limitations highlight the need for multimodal approaches including experience sampling in daily life situation and cross-cultural replications to further refine the measurements of MB. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study protocol was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board of the Establishment of the Institute of Human and Social Sciences Ethics Committee, Kanazawa University (No. 06–61). We explained the purpose of the study to the participants, and we obtained informed consent after ensuring their understanding of the experimental procedures, associated risks, and their right to withdraw at any time. Consent for publication Not applicable Competing interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding This work was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI) (no. K24K21495). Author Contribution T.K. conceived and designed the study, conducted the experiments, analyzed the data, and drafted the main manuscript text. All authors (T.K., K.O., and S.Y.) contributed to the preparation of the experimental setup. S.Y. carried out the experiments and collected the data. K.O. contributed to data interpretation and assisted in refining the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement This research was conducted while the third author was affiliated with Kanazawa University. The author thanks Kanazawa University for providing the facilities and support necessary to conduct this study. Data Availability The data are available from the authors upon reasonable request. References Ward AF, Wegner DM. Mind-blanking: When the mind goes away. Front Psychol. 2013;4 SEP:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00650 . Watts FN, MacLeod AK, Morris L. Associations between phenomenal and objective aspects of concentration problems in depressed patients. Br J Psychol. 1988;79:241–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02285.x . Schooler JW, Reichle ED, Halpern DV. Zoning Out while Reading: Evidence for Dissociations between Experience and Metaconsciousness. Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press; 2004. pp. 203–26. Kawagoe T, Onoda K, Yamaguchi S. The neural correlates of mind blanking: When the mind goes away. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019;40:4934–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24748 . Boulakis PA, Mortaheb S, van Calster L, Majerus S, Demertzi A. Whole-Brain Deactivations Precede Uninduced Mind-Blanking Reports. J Neurosci. 2023;43. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0696-23.2023 . Mortaheb S, Van Calster L, Raimondo F, Klados MA, Boulakis PA, Georgoula K, et al. Mind blanking is a distinct mental state linked to a recurrent brain profile of globally positive connectivity during ongoing mentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119:e2200511119. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2200511119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2200511119.SAPP.PDF . Weinstein Y. Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behav Res Methods. 2018;50:642–61. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9 . Kawagoe T, Yoshimura S, Muranaka S, Xethakis L, Onoda K. Developing the Japanese and English versions of the Mind Blanking Questionnaire (MBQ): validation and reliability. Pers Individ Dif. 2024;220:112539. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2023.112539 . Vale FAC, Balieiro-Jr AP, Silva-Filho JH. Memory complaint scale (MCS). Proposed tool for active systematic search. Dement Neuropsychol. 2012;6:212. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642012DN06040004 . Andrillon T, Lutz A, Windt J, Demertzi A. Where is my mind? A neurocognitive investigation of mind blanking. Trends Cogn Sci. 2025;29:600–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2025.02.002/ASSET/C7627EF3-F435-4149-A613-C259B36B7FF1/MAIN.ASSETS/GR1.JPG . Belardi A, Chaieb L, Rey-Mermet A, Mormann F, Rothen N, Fell J, et al. On the relationship between mind wandering and mindfulness. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-022-11594-X;SUBJMETA . Albert DA, Smilek D. Comparing attentional disengagement between Prolific and MTurk samples. Sci Rep. 2023;13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-023-46048-5;SUBJMETA . n den Driessche C, Chappé C, Konishi M, Cleeremans A, Sackur J. States of mind: Towards a common classification of mental states. Conscious Cogn. 2025;129:103828. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2025.103828 . Mrazek MD, Phillips DT, Franklin MS, Broadway JM, Schooler JW. Young and restless: validation of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) reveals disruptive impact of mind-wandering for youth. Front Psychol. 2013;4:560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560 . Kajimura S, Nomura M. Development of Japanese versions of the Daydream Frequency Scale and the Mind Wandering Questionnaire. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2016;87:79–88. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.87.14223 . Kawagoe T, Kase T. Task-related thought and metacognitive ability in mind wandering reports: an exploratory study. Psychol Res. 2020;1:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01346-9 . Miller AL, Castel AD. Mind-Wandering When Studying Valuable Information: The Roles of Age, Dispositional Traits, and Contextual Factors. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2024;154:190–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/XGE0001674 . Andrillon T, Burns A, Mackay T, Windt J, Tsuchiya N. Predicting lapses of attention with sleep-like slow waves. Nature Communications 2021 12:1. 2021;12:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23890-7 Kawagoe T, Onoda K, Yamaguchi S. The association of motivation with mind wandering in trait and state levels. PLoS ONE. 2020;15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237461 . 8 August:e0237461. Seli P, Risko EF, Smilek D. Assessing the associations among trait and state levels of deliberate and spontaneous mind wandering. Conscious Cogn. 2016;41:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.002 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files suppl.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 29 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 27 Oct, 2025 Editor invited by journal 24 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 24 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7901887","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":540340195,"identity":"7434cf31-5717-4a34-89a7-6183e681e26a","order_by":0,"name":"Toshikazu Kawagoe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokai University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Toshikazu","middleName":"","lastName":"Kawagoe","suffix":""},{"id":540340196,"identity":"dd99584f-2a3f-40ef-80c5-a757dd199238","order_by":1,"name":"Keiichi Onoda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Otemon Gakuin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keiichi","middleName":"","lastName":"Onoda","suffix":""},{"id":540340197,"identity":"486e1456-b00b-4e8c-a066-1f56726e55b5","order_by":2,"name":"Shinpei Yoshimura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Osaka Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shinpei","middleName":"","lastName":"Yoshimura","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-20 03:53:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04517-2","type":"published","date":"2026-04-07T15:59:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95320637,"identity":"9f26517e-c1a0-4e29-af04-7c86c0693d31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1124236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"mainMSv4.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/95d69dd445e10cc9a01b3308.docx"},{"id":95523648,"identity":"471b2d67-a3c9-471e-b4b7-bdabd326bf6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 09:59:41","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5833,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4cfe47963b6a481d811a6123c62f1924.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/ad8798ebd56c5321a3b9a3a5.json"},{"id":95320628,"identity":"b2b445f5-b012-45a1-a93e-096fd477c046","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":35347,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"suppl.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/a912ff5ff49c2491866c5ae2.docx"},{"id":95524218,"identity":"59228a54-8ecc-4379-99d6-51daa5ef8393","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:02:31","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4cfe47963b6a481d811a6123c62f19241enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/aac058bec24d156ebf55d148.xml"},{"id":95523732,"identity":"3f27ec2e-75bc-47c7-9fb2-b6b4488dcd80","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:00:27","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":61392,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/9d16e6cd3096cde496d5d25f.png"},{"id":95320633,"identity":"a8cad59d-7ffa-43cb-b606-c6202d81d259","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":75615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/8ff9a17f9cd8d44021dfcd37.png"},{"id":95320634,"identity":"eea91116-e402-4f42-84e5-d151796f49af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/1bfecbb3c23240d84b96eb37.png"},{"id":95320635,"identity":"8f136cc8-f5a8-4b07-98df-9eb0d4e62a37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"xml","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66675,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4cfe47963b6a481d811a6123c62f19241structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/adcfb8ada6b5ee451caa0e1a.xml"},{"id":95320636,"identity":"d74859de-445d-4be3-8f7e-205ec3220746","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"html","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":76536,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/4c6928e9fd1395ab30bf701d.html"},{"id":95320627,"identity":"75c8b80f-7acb-4392-8b77-96c1ebe368d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":962909,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe choices in the six-option condition. The arrangement of each choice was randomly determined for each sampling. In the five-option condition, the 'Forgot' choice was excluded. MB: mind blanking, MW: mind wandering.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/b43015d46987244b11a11193.png"},{"id":95320630,"identity":"234d5707-ab13-40d3-a634-eae049c36ad4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1097457,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe frequencies of the participants' reported mental states during the sustained attention to response task (SART) (n=183). ED: external distraction, Fgt: Forgot, MB: mind blanking, MW: mind wandering, TRT: task-related thought.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/63a1bc557ba56dca833875a8.png"},{"id":95320629,"identity":"91d9b00b-9054-4509-83a0-d90d3afab3a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 16:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":205940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe participants' behavioral performance across options and sessions (n=183). RT: reaction time.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage31.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/d50e22c61fa8de00872569b8.png"},{"id":106809448,"identity":"d0ccab77-c872-4f75-a443-62c374e6f9b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-13 16:10:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2812505,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/8792a74a-543a-45ef-ac9c-62c8bd1a85bc.pdf"},{"id":95524285,"identity":"7eaeeb21-972a-4780-a609-a05b98b0ce2c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:02:36","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35347,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"suppl.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7901887/v1/fde0d401af158f5b2648f5c6.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Forgetting or Blanking? Evaluating the Role of a Forgot Option in a Thought Sampling Method for Mind Blanking Research","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMuch of cognitive science has focused on the contents of thought, i.e., what we think, why we think it, and how attention fluctuates, but there are moments when the human mind appears to contain nothing at all. These episodes, often described as \"mind blanking (MB),\" reflect a state in which a person reports an absence of conscious awareness and is devoid of sensory input, bodily sensations, and identifiable thoughts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Although the MB state was mentioned in early studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], MB remained largely unexplored due to its elusive nature and to methodological challenges such as how to empirically capture a moment defined by absence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWard and Wegner's seminal work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] provided a conceptual and empirical foundation for MB, distinguishing it from mind wandering (MW), which also involves disengagement from external stimuli but typically retains internal thought content. Ward and Wegner used a thought sampling method (TSM), asking participants to report their exact thoughts retrospectively just prior to a probe presented randomly during a tedious challenge such as a 'sustained attention to a response task' (SART). Their findings demonstrated that MB is not merely a variant of MW; rather, it is a distinct cognitive state. Since then, the research has expanded to examine MB's clinical relevance and neural underpinnings. For example, Van den Driessche et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] reported that individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) described experiencing MB more frequently compared to control subjects, and that stimulant medication reduced the frequency of MB moments to normative levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeuroimaging studies have also begun to characterize MB's neural signature, with findings suggesting reduced activity in regions such as Broca's area and the hippocampus [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. More recent work indicated that this reduced activity or deactivation is not limited to the specific areas; instead, whole-brain deactivations precede the MB experiences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] and also precede overall positive interareal-phase coherence that is akin to deep sleep during prolonged MB episodes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these advances, methodological questions remain. One question concerns the interpretation of MB reports in TSMs. Some methodological issues concerning TSM have been described including issues that may lead to response biases although TSMs are easy and convenient to conduct ( for a review, see [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]). Although the rates of MB reported by study participants have ranged from 3% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] to 15% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] as measured by a TSM during an SART, how accurately are individuals able to report MB? Moreover, is it possible that MB reports reflect a failure in memory retrieval? The authors of a 2024 study reported that a certain number of people, especially individuals from the U.S., indicated that they could not understand and/or had never experienced a MB blank state in their lives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. They also described difficulty in discriminating MB from sleepiness and/or dozing off, based on their observation of a significant correlation between trait MB and daily sleepiness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, even though a TSM targets the moment just before the probe is administered, the reliance on retrospective recall may be demanding for older individuals. For example, individuals who have problems related to their subjective memory (which are frequently detected in elderly people) may forget what they have just read or heard [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. People also experience a so-called \"white dream\" in which they know that they dreamed of something but cannot recall what [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The present study addressed this ambiguity by systematically investigating whether the inclusion of a 'forgot' option in MB probes enhances the validity and interpretability of MB assessments. By disentangling memory failure from blank cognitive states, we sought to refine the measurements of MB and to clarify the boundaries of MB within the spectrum of conscious experience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study participants were recruited via a data collection agency (CrowdWorks: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://crowdworks.co.jp/en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://crowdworks.co.jp/en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). We aimed to recruit 200 participants, based on three considerations. (1) Prior online studies using a SART on platforms such as MTurk and Prolific typically analyzed samples in the range of 100\u0026ndash;200 participants (e;g;, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]). (2) Online experiments are known to incur substantial data loss due to failed attention checks or inadequate task performance, with exclusion rates of approx. 15%\u0026ndash;30% being common. (3) MB tends to occur at relatively low base rates compared to MW, with only\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;15% of probe responses typically classified as MB [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. We thus set a recruitment goal of 200 participants and ultimately obtained usable data from 203 participants who were thought to be na\u0026iuml;ve to the concept of MB. Among the 203 participants, 20 were excluded due to their satisficing behavior, fast response, or low correct rate based on a common standard, i.e., the reaction time (RT)\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;the mean \u0026ndash; 3*standard deviations (SD); hit rate\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5, and false alarm rate\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5. A final total of 183 Japanese participants was thus used for the present analyses (mean age: 43.6, ranged from 21 to 70 [SD: 8.9]; 146 women). Informed consent was received from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe sustained attention to response task (SART) with the experience sampling method\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe administered an SART to the participants in order to assess fluctuations in their sustained attention and momentary experiential states. Each participant was presented with a continuous stream of single-digit numbers (1\u0026ndash;9), each displayed centrally on a computer monitor at 100px font for 1500 ms. Each digit was followed by a fixation cross (+) presented for 1000 ms. The participant was instructed to press the computer's spacebar for all digits except the number 3, which served as the No-Go stimulus requiring response inhibition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo capture the participants' internal states during this task, we incorporated a TSM that uses graphical probes. At random timing, the participant was presented with a probe consisting of either five or six images, each representing a distinct experiential category (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The participants received prior instruction regarding the cognitive content represented by each image. The five options were: (1) Focused attention (Focus), (2) Task-related thoughts (TRTs), (3) External distraction (ED), (4) MW, and (5) MB. These five states were determined based on the common classification of the mental states described by van den Driessche et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The six-options condition added a sixth option, i.e., 'Forgot,' which allowed participants to indicate that they could not recall or verbalize their mental state prior to the probe. The participants selected the image that best described their mental state immediately preceding the probe by clicking directly on the image. Following this choice, the participants also described whether they felt 'sleepy' and if so to what degree just before the probe, by responding on a nine-point Likert scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe task was administered by a crossover design with two sessions. Half of the participants experienced the five-option condition first, followed by the six-option condition, and the other half of the participants experienced the conditions in the reverse order. The SART lasted approx. 15 min, and the number of probes was 22 (5% of the total number of trials). A within-subject crossover design was used in which each participant completed two options, receiving both conditions (five- and six-options) in counterbalanced order. The order of condition presentation (5\u0026rarr;6 vs. 6\u0026rarr;5) was randomized across the participants. This design allowed for the direct comparison of treatment effects within individuals, thereby controlling for inter-subject variability and increasing the statistical power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuestionnaires\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also investigated the association between the results obtained with the TSM and trait-level indices of MW and MB, anticipating significant positive correlations between the frequency of MW and MB reports and their corresponding trait measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) is a single-factor questionnaire that assesses an individual's tendency towards MW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Its total score ranges from 5 to 30 points, with higher scores indicating higher levels of MW tendency. The Japanese version of the MWQ used in this study was that of Kajimura and Nomura [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMind Blanking Questionnaire (MBQ)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MB Questionnaire (MBQ) was developed to assess the MB tendency at the trait level, and it is patterned after the MWQ [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. The MBQ was created and validated in both Japanese and English, showing measurement invariance across languages, genders, and age groups. The total score ranges from 5 to 30 points, with higher scores indicating higher levels of trait MB.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a quasi-binomial logistic regression analysis to assess the effects of the various options and the sessions on the reported frequencies of the mental states. Given the presence of overdispersion in which the variance of the response exceeds the mean, a quasi-binomial family was specified in order to adjust the standard errors accordingly. The dependent variable was the proportion of reported mental states (e.g., Focus, MW, MB) out of the total number of probes per participant and condition. The external distraction (ED) category was designated as the reference level, given that it was the least frequently chosen category and exhibited minimal variation across experimental conditions. Model 1 included fixed effects for mental state, the number of Options (5 and 6), and the Session (1st and 2nd), along with their full factorial interactions for an examination of the carry-over effect as the experiment had a cross-over design. Model 2 added age to the factors examined in Model 1, and Model 3 added sleepiness to the factors examined in Model 1. We calculated the McFadden pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e value to assess the explanatory power of the models relative to a null model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the behavioral data, we calculated the response time for hits (hit RT) and the d-prime value at the probe level, which reflected the participants' immediate cognitive state at the time of the probe. Specifically, for the probe-level analysis, behavioral measures were computed using the three trials that immediately preceded each probe. This approach allowed us to directly link the participants' mental-state reports to the temporally proximal behavioral performance, while also balancing the need for temporal precision with a sufficient amount of data for analysis. To compare the performance across Options, Sessions, and States, a linear mixed model was used to estimate the effects. This approach enabled us to account for individual variability as a random effect while isolating the influences of mental state and task conditions on the behavioral performance. Finally, we conducted rank-order correlation analyses among the external psychological scales and the TSM performance to verify the trait-state association.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe mean frequencies (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SE) of reported mental states across conditions are depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, which clearly indicates that most of the participants did not choose the 'Forgot' option, especially in session 1; the frequency of the Forgot option was 2.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5% in session 1 and 7.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.2% in session 2. The direct comparison revealed a significant difference between the sessions: t[73]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.96 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Among the other five options, a similar pattern was observed between the five- and six-option conditions: Focus was reported most frequently, followed by TRT, ED, MB, and MW, in that order.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe logistic regression analysis (Model 1) showed significantly higher log-odds of the participants' mental state being reported as Focus (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.88 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.57, 95%CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.64\u0026ndash;9.46], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.39, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) or TRT (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.75, 95%CI: 1.21\u0026ndash;2.58], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.89, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004) relative to the baseline category (i.e., ED). Certain interaction terms could not be estimated in our dataset; this occurred because there were no observations of the Forgot state in the five-option condition. Such empty cells in the design matrix create perfect collinearity, rendering the corresponding parameters non-estimable. We thus could not estimate the effect of 'Forgot \u0026times; 6-option' and 'Forgot \u0026times; 6-option \u0026times; 2nd session' interactions. It is noteworthy that, even with the absence of the Forgot option in half of the trials (i.e., in the five-option condition), the coefficient for the Forgot option was not significant (β = \u0026minus;0.64 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.53, 95%CI: 0.26\u0026ndash;1.01], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.84, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.065), indicating that we obtained no reliable evidence of a difference from the category ED, which is one of the common choices in TSMs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe result of a complemental one-sample one-tailed t-test indicated that the proportion of the Forgot response was significantly selected across participants (t[182]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.99, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). We also observed no effect of Option (five vs. six options: β = \u0026minus;0.15 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86, 95%CI: 0.54\u0026ndash;1.36], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.65, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.514) and its interactions with each choice (ps\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.327), and Session (1st vs. 2nd session: β = \u0026minus;0.21 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81, 95%CI: 0.51\u0026ndash;1.28], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.90, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37) and its interactions with each choice (ps\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.106), indicating that there was no carry-over effect in the data. No other significant interaction was identified in Model 1 (Pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003eMcF\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 2 incorporated age as a fixed effect together with State and Options to examine the proportions of the reported mental states. Although Model 2 did not surpass the exploratory power of Model 1 (Pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003eMcF\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38), age significantly influenced the participants' Focus reports (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.03, 95%CI: 1.01\u0026ndash;1.05], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.64, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008), indicating that the older participants were more likely to report being in a focused state. No significant main effect of Options or its interaction was observed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 3 excluded age and instead included sleepiness as a predictor. Although it did not outperform Models 1 and 2 (Pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003eMcF\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.41), sleepiness interacted significantly with Focus (β = \u0026minus;0.27 [OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.74, 95%CI: 0.67\u0026ndash;0.82], t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3.62, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), indicating that a greater degree of sleepiness was associated with a reduced likelihood of reporting a focused state compared to the reference state. Again, no significant main effect of Options or interaction effect was detected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe next examined whether the presence of the Forgot option influenced the participants' task performance. The model specification was identical to that of Model 1, except that the dependent variable was replaced with an alternative measure of performance. The behavioral data could not be explained by the state or its interactions with Options and Sessions (the marginal R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values were 0.004, 0.004, and 0.091 for the hit RT, its SD, and d-prime, respectively), while the individual difference could explain a certain amount of the hit RT (conditional R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.502) but not the SD of the RT or the d-prime (the conditional R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003es were 0.114 and 0.153, respectively). No significant effect of options or sessions or their interaction on the hit RT, its SD, and d-prime was observed (ps\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.167; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). As further detailed in the Supplementary Material (\u003cem\u003esee\u003c/em\u003e Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e for the values of the hit RT, Table S2 for the SD values, and Table S3 for the d-prime data), the results indicate that the Option did not affect the participants' performance in any state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Finally, we examined the association between the frequency of reported mental states obtained by the TSM and the participants' responses on the trait-level psychological scales, i.e., the MWQ and MBQ. The expected association was confirmed across both Options conditions for mind wandering, whereas it varied between Options for MB (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpearman's rank correlation coefficients (rho, ρ) and 95%CIs between the frequency of reported mental states and the trait‑level questionnaire scores obtained by the 183 participants. MWQ: mind wandering questionnaire, .MBQ: mind blanking questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMind wandering\u0026ndash;MWQ [95%CI]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMind blanking\u0026ndash;MBQ [95%CI]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive-option\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.186 [0.042\u0026ndash;0.322]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.009 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.136 to 0.154]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix-option\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.189 [0.045\u0026ndash;0.325]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.182 [0.037\u0026ndash;0.318]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe investigated whether the inclusion of a 'Forgot' option in thought sampling probes could improve the interpretability of MB reports by distinguishing \"pure\" blank states from memory retrieval failures. Although the results of this study demonstrated that the Forgot option was selected infrequently overall by the participants \u0026mdash; particularly in the first session \u0026mdash; the presence of the Forgot option revealed subtle but meaningful patterns in introspective reporting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the low frequency of Forgot responses, especially in this study's initial session, suggests that the participants rarely defaulted to this option. This may reflect a genuine ability to recall mental states under typical conditions. However, the significant result of the one-sample t-test confirms that the Forgot option was meaningfully selected across the participants, indicating that memory failure is a non-negligible component of introspective experience. Importantly, the logistic regression revealed no significant difference between the Forgot option and the baseline category (i.e., external distraction, one of the common choices in TSMs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]), which suggests that Forgot responses may occupy a certain amount of an individual's mental status during an SART.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe absence of significant effects of the Options and Sessions suggests that the inclusion of the Forgot option did not systematically distort the distribution of the other mental states. This is particularly relevant given prior concerns about response biases in thought sampling methods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, the behavioral data (i.e., the hit RT, RT variability, and d-prime) did not vary significantly across the conditions. These results lend credibility to the inclusion of the Forgot option as a meaningful category, rather than a disruptive element. Our finding that Focus and Task-related thought were the most frequently reported options and the relatively low frequencies of mind wandering and MB in this study align with the SART study of Japanese subjects by Kawagoe and Kase [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. We also observed that older adults were more likely to report being focused, and that increased sleepiness was associated with reduced focus, consistent with prior investigations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur trait-level analyses revealed expected associations between the participants' reports of mind wandering and their MWQ scores across both probe conditions, validating the introspective sensitivity of the task administered in this study. The magnitude of state\u0026ndash;trait associations in mind-wandering has been reported to be modest, typically around r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2\u0026ndash;0.35 [15, 20, 21]. The most noteworthy finding of the present study is that, in contrast, MB reports were only associated with MBQ scores in the six-option condition, suggesting that the Forgot option may have clarified the boundaries of MB by absorbing ambiguous responses. This supports our current hypothesis that MB, as traditionally measured, may conflate genuine blankness with memory lapses, particularly in populations with subjective memory complaints or cultural unfamiliarity with the concept.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, our findings suggest that the inclusion of a Forgot option enhances the interpretive clarity of MB assessments without introducing systematic bias. By refining the taxonomy of experiential states, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of MB and its measurement. The Forgot option offers a practical tool for disentangling introspective uncertainty from genuine blankness, especially in populations whose memory reliability or metacognitive access may be compromised. Future research should explore the generalizability of this study's findings across cultural contexts and clinical populations, and further investigations should examine the neural correlates of Forgot versus MB states by using neuroimaging or electrophysiological methods. Ultimately, improving the granularity of thought sampling not only deepens our grasp of cognitive lapses; it will also enhance the methodological precision with which we study the boundaries of conscious experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these contributions, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the frequency of Forgot responses was relatively low, particularly in the initial session, which may limit the statistical power to detect subtle effects or interactions. Second, although the inclusion of the Forgot option was designed to disentangle memory failure from MB, the retrospective nature of the TSM still relies on the participants' metacognitive access and interpretive judgment, which may vary across individuals. Third, the study was conducted with a Japanese population that was recruited online, and cultural or linguistic factors may influence the interpretation and reportability of MB and Forgot experiences. Finally, although this study's behavioral measures did not show significant variation across conditions, the absence of valid neurophysiological and/or ecological data limits our ability to validate the experiential categories with objective markers. These limitations highlight the need for multimodal approaches including experience sampling in daily life situation and cross-cultural replications to further refine the measurements of MB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e The study protocol was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board of the Establishment of the Institute of Human and Social Sciences Ethics Committee, Kanazawa University (No. 06\u0026ndash;61). We explained the purpose of the study to the participants, and we obtained informed consent after ensuring their understanding of the experimental procedures, associated risks, and their right to withdraw at any time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI) (no. K24K21495).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eT.K. conceived and designed the study, conducted the experiments, analyzed the data, and drafted the main manuscript text. All authors (T.K., K.O., and S.Y.) contributed to the preparation of the experimental setup. S.Y. carried out the experiments and collected the data. K.O. contributed to data interpretation and assisted in refining the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted while the third author was affiliated with Kanazawa University. The author thanks Kanazawa University for providing the facilities and support necessary to conduct this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWard AF, Wegner DM. Mind-blanking: When the mind goes away. Front Psychol. 2013;4 SEP:1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00650\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00650\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatts FN, MacLeod AK, Morris L. Associations between phenomenal and objective aspects of concentration problems in depressed patients. Br J Psychol. 1988;79:241\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02285.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02285.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchooler JW, Reichle ED, Halpern DV. Zoning Out while Reading: Evidence for Dissociations between Experience and Metaconsciousness. Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press; 2004. pp. 203\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawagoe T, Onoda K, Yamaguchi S. The neural correlates of mind blanking: When the mind goes away. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019;40:4934\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24748\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hbm.24748\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoulakis PA, Mortaheb S, van Calster L, Majerus S, Demertzi A. Whole-Brain Deactivations Precede Uninduced Mind-Blanking Reports. J Neurosci. 2023;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0696-23.2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0696-23.2023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMortaheb S, Van Calster L, Raimondo F, Klados MA, Boulakis PA, Georgoula K, et al. Mind blanking is a distinct mental state linked to a recurrent brain profile of globally positive connectivity during ongoing mentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119:e2200511119. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2200511119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2200511119.SAPP.PDF\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/PNAS.2200511119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2200511119.SAPP.PDF\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeinstein Y. Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behav Res Methods. 2018;50:642\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawagoe T, Yoshimura S, Muranaka S, Xethakis L, Onoda K. Developing the Japanese and English versions of the Mind Blanking Questionnaire (MBQ): validation and reliability. Pers Individ Dif. 2024;220:112539. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2023.112539\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.PAID.2023.112539\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVale FAC, Balieiro-Jr AP, Silva-Filho JH. Memory complaint scale (MCS). Proposed tool for active systematic search. Dement Neuropsychol. 2012;6:212. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642012DN06040004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S1980-57642012DN06040004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrillon T, Lutz A, Windt J, Demertzi A. Where is my mind? A neurocognitive investigation of mind blanking. Trends Cogn Sci. 2025;29:600\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2025.02.002/ASSET/C7627EF3-F435-4149-A613-C259B36B7FF1/MAIN.ASSETS/GR1.JPG\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.TICS.2025.02.002/ASSET/C7627EF3-F435-4149-A613-C259B36B7FF1/MAIN.ASSETS/GR1.JPG\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelardi A, Chaieb L, Rey-Mermet A, Mormann F, Rothen N, Fell J, et al. On the relationship between mind wandering and mindfulness. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-022-11594-X;SUBJMETA\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/S41598-022-11594-X;SUBJMETA\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbert DA, Smilek D. Comparing attentional disengagement between Prolific and MTurk samples. Sci Rep. 2023;13:1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-023-46048-5;SUBJMETA\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/S41598-023-46048-5;SUBJMETA\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003en den Driessche C, Chapp\u0026eacute; C, Konishi M, Cleeremans A, Sackur J. States of mind: Towards a common classification of mental states. Conscious Cogn. 2025;129:103828. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2025.103828\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.CONCOG.2025.103828\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMrazek MD, Phillips DT, Franklin MS, Broadway JM, Schooler JW. Young and restless: validation of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) reveals disruptive impact of mind-wandering for youth. Front Psychol. 2013;4:560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKajimura S, Nomura M. Development of Japanese versions of the Daydream Frequency Scale and the Mind Wandering Questionnaire. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2016;87:79\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.87.14223\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4992/jjpsy.87.14223\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawagoe T, Kase T. Task-related thought and metacognitive ability in mind wandering reports: an exploratory study. Psychol Res. 2020;1:3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01346-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00426-020-01346-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller AL, Castel AD. Mind-Wandering When Studying Valuable Information: The Roles of Age, Dispositional Traits, and Contextual Factors. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2024;154:190\u0026ndash;227. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/XGE0001674\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/XGE0001674\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrillon T, Burns A, Mackay T, Windt J, Tsuchiya N. Predicting lapses of attention with sleep-like slow waves. Nature Communications 2021 12:1. 2021;12:1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23890-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-021-23890-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawagoe T, Onoda K, Yamaguchi S. The association of motivation with mind wandering in trait and state levels. PLoS ONE. 2020;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237461\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0237461\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 8 August:e0237461.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeli P, Risko EF, Smilek D. Assessing the associations among trait and state levels of deliberate and spontaneous mind wandering. Conscious Cogn. 2016;41:50\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"mind-blanking, thought sampling method, number of options, sustained attention to response task, forgetting","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMind blanking describes a state of consciousness in which a person reports an absence of thought, sensation, or awareness. Although thought sampling methods (TSMs) have been used to capture mind blanking during sustained attention tasks, concerns remain about whether individuals' reports of mind blanking during the task reflect genuine blankness or failures in memory retrieval.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe investigated whether adding a 'Forgot' option to a TSM probes improves the interpretability of mind-blanking assessments. Japanese participants (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;183) completed a sustained attention to response task (SART) under two probe conditions: one with five common categorical options and another with an added sixth 'Forgot' option. A within-subject crossover design allowed for a direct comparison of the results in each condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participants' responses demonstrated that the 'Forgot' option was selected infrequently, especially in the first session, but its inclusion clarified introspective reporting. The participants' behavioral performance (represented by the hit response time, variability, and d-prime values) was unaffected by the probe condition, suggesting no disruption. A correlation analysis revealed the expected associations between the participants' reports of mind-wandering (MW) during the SART and questionnaire-based trait MW scores across both conditions. In contrast, the participants' reports of mind blanking during the SART were related to the trait MB scores only when the response option 'Forgot' was included.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that the 'Forgot' option helps distinguish genuine mind blanking from memory lapses without influencing an individual's behavioral performance, thus refining the taxonomy of experiential states. This methodological refinement enhances the precision of mind-blanking measurements and offers a practical tool for studying cognitive absence.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Forgetting or Blanking? Evaluating the Role of a Forgot Option in a Thought Sampling Method for Mind Blanking Research","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-06 16:39:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7901887/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-06T04:43:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-29T17:42:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"1167855301727072499691822113866822427","date":"2025-11-27T10:24:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-26T03:33:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"314128385014407675127404171889684767461","date":"2025-10-29T02:44:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-27T11:25:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-27T07:44:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-24T10:53:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-24T09:25:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-10-24T09:22:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ccfab071-aa1f-45d9-8b01-a2553f1e9584","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-13T16:06:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7901887","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04517-2","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-07 15:59:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 7th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-06 16:39:40","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-026-04517-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04517-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7901887","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7901887","identity":"rs-7901887","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}