**Background** -------------- Vigilance is the ability to consistently perform a task over an extended period. During prolonged tasks, vigilance tends to decline gradually, a phenomenon known as the "vigilance decrement" (Hancock, 2017). The vigilance decrement can lead to various consequences, ranging from minor issues, such as missing parts of a lecture, to severe consequences, such as traffic accidents. Several efforts have been undertaken in experimental research to explore strategies for mitigating the vigilance decrement (Luna et al., 2020; Hemmerich et al., 2023). In experimental tasks, the vigilance decrement is typically characterized by a progressive reduction in the detection of infrequent but critical signals, as well as an increase in the mean and variability of reaction time (Hancock, 2017; Mackworth, 1948). In recent years, a conceptual and empirical dissociation has been proposed between two components of vigilance: (a) executive vigilance (EV), which refers to maintaining active control to detect infrequent critical signals by executing a specific response, and (b) arousal vigilance (AV), which is necessary to maintain optimal levels of activation to react quickly and automatically to environmental stimuli (Luna et al., 2018). Since then, several investigations have been conducted in our lab to investigate the efficiency of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to mitigate the vigilance decrement. Luna et al. (2020) conducted a study where they examined the effects of anodal High-Definition (HD-tDCS) on the behavioral and electrophysiological functioning of attentional and vigilance components. A total of 92 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups based on the stimulation procedure: (1) active stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC) (1.5 mA, n = 30), (2) active stimulation over the right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) (1.5 mA, n = 32), and (3) a sham stimulation over rPPC group (1.5mA, n = 15) or sham stimulation over right DLPFC (1.5 mA, n= 15). Active stimulation was applied over two areas (rDLPFC or rPPC) extensively involved in attentional functions (Petersen and Posner, 2012; Posner, 2012). All participants performed an attentional networks task (ANTI-Vea) suitable for measuring both executive and arousal components of vigilance, along with the three typical attentional functions: phasic alertness, orientation, and executive control. Active/sham stimulation was delivered between the 2nd and 6th task blocks (i.e., ~28 min) and, additionally, EEG recordings were taken at the 1st (i.e., baseline) and 7th (i.e., after active/sham stimulation) blocks. The authors found that, regardless of the stimulation site, HD-tDCS mitigated the decline in EV but did not modulate AV over time-on-task. Interestingly, only HD-tDCS applied over the rPPC significantly reduced the increase in alpha power over time-on-task under parietal electrodes. Later on, Hemmerich et al. (2023) replicated the study by Luna et al. (2020) to test the effectiveness of anodal HD- tDCS over the rPPC in mitigating specifically the EV but not the AV decrement, while extending the analysis to electrophysiological measures associated with vigilance. 60 participants completed the ANTI-Vea task, while receiving active HD- tDCS (1.5 mA, n = 30) or sham HD- tDCS (0 mA, n = 30) over the rPPC, following the same procedure as in Luna et al. (2020). Authors found that anodal HD-tDCS specifically mitigated the EV decrement and reduced the increase in alpha power in the right parietal cortex over time-on-task, while increasing gamma power in the right dorsolateral frontal cortex. Furthermore, the authors proposed a new Alpha Parietal / Gamma Frontal index to account for the observed results. Interestingly, in participants in which the index showed the greatest increase across time, anodal HD-tDCS mitigated the EV decrement more pronouncedly. Altogether, these findings highlight the importance of replicating the mitigating effects of HD-tDCS and the need to integrate physiological measures to understand how anodal HD-tDCS can modulate attention and vigilance performance. Additionally, there are theoretical models that postulate a crucial role of other processes in explaining the decrease in vigilance, such as theories related to changes in mind wandering (MW). MW refers to internal thoughts that are irrelevant to complete "the ongoing task" (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006, 2015). For instance, the model proposed by Thomson and colleagues (2015) suggests that over time, executive control tends to decrease, causing attentional resources to shift from the ongoing task to task-unrelated thoughts; i.e., MW, thereby resulting in decreased vigilance. In this regard, it would be highly informative to incorporate subjective measurements of changes in MW over time when analyzing the effects of tDCS on behavioral performance and EEG signals. The propensity for MW has also been studied using tDCS protocols. For instance, Nawani et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the influence of tDCS on the left DLPFC (lDLPFC) and the right inferior parietal lobe (rIPL) in MW propensity. All studies involved healthy adult participants and utilized cognitive tasks combined with MW probes. The authors found that anodal stimulation over the rIPL was negatively associated with MW propensity, while lDLPFC stimulation was not related to MW propensity. Other researchers have also found that stimulation over the rPPC reduces MW propensity (Kajimura & Nomura, 2015) whereas stimulation over the lDLPFC seems to have no effects on MW (Coulborn & Fernández-Espejo, 2022). It is important to note that the development of effective and replicable procedures for mitigating behavioral, subjective, and electrophysiological markers associated with the vigilance decrement demands the exploration of novel HD-tDCS protocols, considering recent advances in the development of the setup of the stimulation protocol. For example, the development of HD-tDCS has enabled the use of smaller electrodes, which allow for greater current density and improved focus through a stimulation ring (Alam et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2013) . For this type of setup, smaller electrodes than conventional ones are used, allowing for the utilization of more than one stimulation ring, creating a dual-site stimulation setup. To compare the efficacy of dual/single HD-tDCS, Hill et al. (2018) investigated the neurobiological and cognitive effects HD-tDCS on working memory by comparing two protocols: one focused exclusively on the DLPFC and another that simultaneously stimulated DLPFC and parietal cortex (DLPFC + PC). They designed an experiment with 16 healthy individuals, where each participant completed three experimental sessions receiving HD-tDCS over the DLPFC, DLPFC + PC, or sham stimulation. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) techniques were used to analyze changes in cortical reactivity. Additionally, oscillatory power was measured through EEG during n-back tasks. The authors observed significant increases in theta and gamma wave power after dual-site stimulation, in contrast to stimulation applied only to the DLPFC. However, they did not find a significant modulation in working memory performance induced by HD-tDCS, regardless of the stimulation montage used.These findings reveal the promising potential of HD-tDCS protocols in mitigating vigilance decrement. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the ongoing need for research to fully understand its effectiveness and optimize its application in practical settings. **Aims** ---- Within this framework, the main objective of this study is to replicate previous research (Hemmerich et al., 2023; Luna et al., 2020), but using a within-participant design in order to examine the efficacy of HD-tDCS in mitigating the EV decrement and MW during prolonged tasks. Furthermore, a secondary purpose is to optimize HD-tDCS protocols by comparing single-site stimulation with dual-site stimulation in relation to the vigilance decrement. Through this comparison, we aim to identify which of these approaches is more effective in mitigating the vigilance decrement during prolonged tasks. In particular, the specific objectives of this study are: - To replicate the effect of anodal HD-tDCS over the rPPC in mitigating EV decrement but not AV decrement (Luna et al., 2020). - To replicate the effect of anodal HD-tDCS over the rPPC in reducing the rPPC alpha power increment across time-on-task (Luna et al., 2020). To replicate the effect of anodal HD- tDCS over the rPPC in increasing frontal gamma power (Hemmerich et al., 2023) - To further explore the effects of anodal HD-tDCS on changes in MW across time-on-task. - Finally, to examine whether the dual-site protocol (rPPC and rDLFPC; as compared to a single-site one) is effective in mitigating EV decrement (Hill et al. 2018). **Hypotheses** ---------- Following previous studies conducted in our lab (Hemmerich et al., 2023; Luna et al. 2020), we expect that HD-tDCS stimulation will attenuate specifically the decrease in EV -but not in AV- in the rPPC stimulation session as compared to sham stimulation session. Furthermore, if the vigilance decrement is mediated by the increased propensity to MW across time-on-task, it is expected that the propensity for MW will be also attenuated over time during the task in the stimulation sessions over rPPC (Kajimura & Nomura, 2015; Nawani et al., 2023) . At the EEG level, anodal HD-tDCS in rPPC is expected to reduce the increase in alpha power over time-on-task while increasing the increase in gamma power in the rDLPC. Furthermore, the alpha parietal /gamma frontal index is expected to increase over time-on-task and to be associated with a more pronounced decrease in EV in the sham HD-tDCS session, while this effect is expected to be mitigated by anodal HD-tDCS (Hemmerich et al, 2023). Finally, given that - to the best of our knowledge - only one paper (Hill et al., 2018) has explored parietal-frontal dual-site stimulation vs. single-site parietal stimulation, effects of dual-site stimulation will be explored without clear a-priori hypotheses. Nevertheless, based on the results from Hill et al. (2018), we expect the dual-site stimulation to have similar behavioral effects to those observed for the single-site HD-tDCS protocol over the rPPC. **Method** ------ **Participant** A power analysis was conducted in R with SuperPower package (Lakens & Caldwell, 2021), with 10000 simulations for an interaction between Session (sham, single-site stimulation, and dual-site stimulation) x Block (1-6) as within-participant factors. The mean and standard deviation of hits per block and per session condition were simulated from data collected in previous studies (Hemmerich et al., 2023; Luna et al., 2020) and included for the sham and active stimulation on rPPC stimulation condition. For the dual-site active stimulation condition, a similar mean and SD per session condition and block as the active rPPC condition was simulated. The analysis showed that with a sample of 40 participants, a significant interaction with an α level = .05 and an effect size of partial eta squared = .06 would be observed with a statistical power of 1 - Beta = .82. Signed consent will be obtained from all 40 participants, following ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (last update: Brazil, 2013). Participants will have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no known neurological or psychiatric conditions, and no safety contraindications for receiving transcranial electrical stimulation (Rossi et al., 2009; Rossini et al., 2015). A reward of 10€/hour will be offered in exchange for participation. This study is approved by the University of Granada Ethical Committee (2442/CEIH/2021). **Apparatus and Stimuli** *Questionnaires* Participants will complete the following questionnaires, of interest for the present or larger research projects to which the current study belong to: - Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) (Cásedas et al., 2022) - Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale - Short Form (DERS-SF) (Navarro et al., 2021) - Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS) (Guilera et al., 2018) - NASA Task Load Index (Arger, I. & Nogareda, C., 1999) - Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ) (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2015). *ANTI- VEA task with MW measures* The task is composed of seven experimental blocks of 80 trials each, in which three types of subtasks are combined: (a) ANTI (60%, 48 trials per block), in which the participants' task is to respond to the direction of the central arrow in a horizontal string of five arrows to assess the independence and interactions of phasic alertness, orienting, and executive control; (b) EV (20%, 16 trials per block), to measure the executive component of vigilance, in which the target is vertically displaced from the central position of ANTI trials and should be detected while ignoring the direction of the arrow; and (c) AV (20%, 16 trials per block) in which a count-down should be stopped as fast as possible as in the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (Lim & Dinges, 2008) to measure the arousal component of vigilance. Each trial has a duration of 4100ms. Additionally, thought probes (TP) - as a proxy of MW measures - will be added to the ANTI- Vea task. In a previous study by the team (Aguirre et al., manuscript in preparation), we observed that it is possible to add TP in the ANTI-Vea task, which maintains its typical functioning even when 12 TP are included in each task block. Participants will have to answer the following question: “Where was your attention just before the appearance of this question?” Participants will respond by moving the cursor on a continuous scale ranging from "completely on-task" (extreme left, coded as -1) to "completely off-task" (extreme right, coded as 1). 12 TP per block will be presented. TP presentation will be pseudo-randomized, so that there will be at least 5 continuous trials of the ANTI-Vea between two TP. *HD-tDCS* The application of HD-tDCS has the advantage of generating a considerably more focused current distribution around the area between the central electrode (anode in our protocol) and the ring of return electrodes (i.e., cathodes) compared to the conventional tDCS procedure using one anode and one cathode (Masina et al., 2021). HD-tDCS will be applied using the STARSTIM 32 hybrid wireless neurostimulator (Neuroelectrics®, Barcelona) with thirty-two channels. The high-density montage will be configured similarly to the procedure used in previous studies by the research group (Hemmerich et al., 2023; Luna et al., 2020). For the single-site stimulation over the rPPC we will use a ring of five electrodes (see Figure 1A): with P4 idelivering anodal current of 1.5mA, and four return current electrodes positioned surrounding the anodal electrode (PO4, PO8, CP6, and CP2). ![enter image description here][2] Figure 1. A) Representation of the stimulation setup of electrodes in the single-site stimulation over rPPC. B) Simulated stimulation field for HD-tDCS over the rPPC. C) Representation of the stimulation setup of electrodes in the dual-site stimulation over the rPPC and DLPFC. D) Simulated stimulation field for HD-tDCS over the rPPC and DLPFC. For dual-site stimulation over the rPPC and rDLFPC we will use two rings (see Figure 1C). One will follow the same configuration as the single site stimulation: P4 (over the rPPC) delivering anodal current of 1.5mA, and PO4, PO8, CP6, and CP2 in the rPPC as return current electrodes, and the other ring: F4 (over the DLPFC) delivering anodal current of 1.5m and AF4, FZ, FC2 and FC6 as return current electrodes. In the sham simulation session, half of the participants will have the same electrode setup as the dual-site session, while the other half of participants will have the same configuration as the single site session. The reference channel will be used with a clip placed on the earlobe. We will use Ag/AgCl coated NG-Pistim electrodes, with a 1 cm radius. *EEG recordings* Additionally, EEG signals will be recorded during the 1st and 7th task blocks, as measures of pre-post stimulation, respectively with the electrodes placed as shown in Figure 2. Also, a 7-minute resting state period will be recorded before and after the task, using the same electrode setup as during the on-task recording. ![enter image description here][1] Figure 2. Thirty - two electrodes setup used for recording resting state and on-task EEG data. **Procedure and Design** The present study will be conducted using a within-participant design, where each participant will take part in three stimulation conditions, counterbalanced across three separate sessions. A minimum of 24 hours and a maximum of 72 hours will be allowed between each of these sessions. A security questionnaire assessing the inclusion/exclusion criteria for HD-tDCS will be sent to participants. Only those who fulfill the inclusion criteria for a safe application of HD- tDCS will be contacted to proceed with the experiment (Rossi et al., 2009; Rossini et al., 2015). Subsequently, participants will receive instructions to complete the MWQ, IPS, DERS-SF and the ANTI- Vea task online at home. The online session of the ANTI-Vea is considered as practice and familiarization in the present study and is intended to eliminate or reduce potential practice effects across experimental sessions (see a similar procedure in Sanchis et al., 2020; Luna et al., 2023a, 2023b). Then participants will complete the three sessions in the laboratory. The order of the sessions will be counterbalanced and the procedure will be the same, except for the stimulation condition. First, participants will complete the first part of DSSQ. Then participants will read the task instructions again and complete a single practice block without feedback while electrode setup is completed. Afterward, they will perform a 7-minute period with open eyes (centered on a fixation point) wherein resting state EEG (rs-EEG) signal will be recorded. Following this, they will proceed to begin with the experimental trials of the ANTI-Vea task. Stimulation will be administered according to each experimental session. The three experimental session include: - Single-Site Stimulation Session: participants will receive HD- tDCS in the rPPC with the previously mentioned montage while performing the ANTI-Vea task with TP. - Dual-Site Stimulation Session: participants will receive HD- tDCS in the rPPC and the DLPFC with the previously mentioned montage while performing the ANTI-Vea task with TP. - Sham Stimulation Session: this is a simulated stimulation session that will not have a real effect on brain activity, serving as a control group. Participants will perform the same task, ANTI-Vea with TP. For the stimulation sessions reference EEG recordings will be completed during the first experimental block. HD-tDCS or Sham HD-tDCS will be applied over the rPPC or rPPC and DLPFC from the second to the sixth experimental block. During the seventh and final experimental block, post-task EEG measures will be recorded. Finally, participants will perform a 7-minute resting state period with open eyes again, wherein EEG signal will be recorded. Then they will complete a tES Survey to report their subjective experience during stimulation (Fertonani, Ferrari, and Miniussi, 2015), as well as the last part of DSSQ and NASA TLX. **Data analysis** *Behavioral data* Changes in EV will be analyzed through separate repeated measures ANOVAs, including hits (correct identification of vertically displaced targets), false alarms (incorrect identification of non-displaced targets as being vertically displaced), sensitivity, or response bias as a dependent variable. AV will be analyzed using separate repeated measures ANOVAs, including the mean or standard deviation of the Reaction Time (RT) or lapses rate (i.e., RT ≥ 600 ms) as a dependent variable. Changes in MW will be evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA, with the response on the scale as the dependent variable. For all analyses, experimental block (6 levels, from 1st to 6th) and the session (active single-site, active dual-site, or sham) will be within-participant factors. *EEG data* The mean power in each frequency band will be analyzed through repeated measures ANOVAs with the Period (pre/post-stimulation) and the Session (single, dual, or sham) as within-participant factors. Based on Hemmerich et al. (2023), alpha and gamma bands will be evaluated with specific hypotheses, although possible effects on other frequency bands will be also explored. More specifically, the index combining alpha parietal power and gamma frontal power will be computed using the formula Alpha Parietal / Gamma Frontal . Following Hemmerich et al.( 2023), this index will be computed for the periods before and after stimulation and will be analyzed through a mixed ANOVA. In this analysis, the Period and the Session will be considered as a factor within participants. Furthermore, the effects of the stimulation over the EEG data will be also explored separately for periodic and aperiodic components. *Questionnaires* The MWQ, NASA TLX and DSSQ questionnaires will be analyzed in correlation with the measures of the ANTI-Vea TP task. This analysis will explore the relationship between: - Typical characteristics of intentional and/or spontaneous internal distraction (MWQ). - Self-perceived level of attentional engagement with the task (DSSQ). - Perceived mental workload associated with the task (NASA TLX). **References** ---------- Alam, M., Truong, D. Q., Khadka, N., & Bikson, M. (2016). Spatial and polarity precision of concentric high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS). Physics in Medicine and Biology, 61(12), 4506-4521. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/12/4506 Arger, I., & Nogareda, C. (1999). Estimación de la carga mental de trabajo: El método NASA TLX. NTP 544. INSHT. https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/327064/ntp_544.pdf/0da348cc-7006-4a8a-9cee-25ed6f59efdd Cásedas, L., Cebolla, A., & Lupiáñez, J. (2022). Individual Differences in Dispositional Mindfulness Predict Attentional Networks and Vigilance Performance. Mindfulness, 13(4), 967-981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01850-6 Coulborn, S., & Fernández-Espejo, D. (2022). Prefrontal tDCS is unable to modulate mind wandering propensity or underlying functional or effective brain connectivity. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 18021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22893-8 Edwards, D., Cortes, M., Datta, A., Minhas, P., Wassermann, E. M., & Bikson, M. (2013). Physiological and modeling evidence for focal transcranial electrical brain stimulation in humans: A basis for high-definition tDCS. NeuroImage, 74, 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.042 Fertonani, A., Ferrari, C., & Miniussi, C. (2015). What do you feel if I apply transcranial electric stimulation? Safety , sensations and secondary induced effects. CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.03.015 Guilera, G., Barrios, M., Penelo, E., Morin, C., Steel, P., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2018). Validation of the Spanish version of the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS). PLOS ONE, 13(1), e0190806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190806 Hancock, P. A. (2017). On the Nature of Vigilance. Human Factors, 59(1), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816655240 Hemmerich, K., Lupiáñez, J., Luna, F. G., & Martín-Arévalo, E. (2023). The mitigation of the executive vigilance decrement via HD-tDCS over the right posterior parietal cortex and its association with neural oscillations. Cerebral Cortex, 33(11), 6761-6771. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac540 Hill, A. T., Rogasch, N. C., Fitzgerald, P. B., & Hoy, K. E. (2018). Effects of single versus dual-site High-Definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on cortical reactivity and working memory performance in healthy subjects. Brain Stimulation, 11(5), 1033-1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.06.005 Kajimura, S., & Nomura, M. (2015). Decreasing propensity to mind-wander with transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 75, 533-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.013 Lakens, D., & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-Based Power Analysis for Factorial Analysis of Variance Designs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 251524592095150. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951503 Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2008). Sleep Deprivation and Vigilant Attention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129(1), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1417.002 Luna, F. G., Marino, J., Roca, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2018). Executive and arousal vigilance decrement in the context of the attentional networks: The ANTI-Vea task. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 306(May), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.05.011 Luna, F. G., Román-Caballero, R., Barttfeld, P., Lupiáñez, J., & Martín-Arévalo, E. (2020). A High-Definition tDCS and EEG study on attention and vigilance: Brain stimulation mitigates the executive but not the arousal vigilance decrement. Neuropsychologia, 142(March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107447 Masina, F., Arcara, G., Galletti, E., Cinque, I., Gamberini, L., & Mapelli, D. (2021). Neurophysiological and behavioural effects of conventional and high definition tDCS. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 7659. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87371-z Navarro, O., Restrepo-Ochoa, D., Rommel, D., Ghalaret, J.-M., & Fleury-Bahi, G. (2021). Validation of a brief version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale with a Spanish speaking population (DERS-S SF). Nawani, H., Mittner, M., & Csifcsák, G. (2023). Modulation of mind wandering using transcranial direct current stimulation: A meta-analysis based on electric field modeling. NeuroImage, 272, 120051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120051 Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(12), 2008–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016 Rossini, P. M., Burke, D., Chen, R., Cohen, L. G., Daskalakis, Z., Di Iorio, R., Di Lazzaro, V., Ferreri, F., Fitzgerald, P. B., George, M. S., Hallett, M., Lefaucheur, J. P., Langguth, B., Matsumoto, H., Miniussi, C., Nitsche, M. A., Pascual-Leone, A., Paulus, W., Rossi, S., … Ziemann, U. (2015). Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology, 126(6), 1071–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.001 Sanchez-Ruiz, M.-J., Pérez-González, J. C., Romo, M., & Matthews, G. (2015). Divergent thinking and stress dimensions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.06.005 Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946-958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The Science of Mind Wandering: Empirically Navigating the Stream of Consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 487-518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331 Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015). A Resource-Control Account of Sustained Attention: Evidence From Mind-Wandering and Vigilance Paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614556681 [1]: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/hn9ub/providers/osfstorage/66103853bba39a206672a00c?mode=render [2]: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/hn9ub/providers/osfstorage/66103849943bee22cfdfee9d?mode=render