Meta-Awareness: Noticing Your Own Mental Processes

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Meta-awareness is the capacity to notice what is happening in one's own mind while thinking, feeling, attending, or acting. A familiar example occurs when someone is reading, realizes that their attention has drifted into an unrelated train of thought, and becomes aware of the drift itself. The realization is a metacognitive event: a mental process has become the object of another act of awareness. Researchers study this capacity particularly through mind-wandering experiments, first-person reports, and investigations of mindfulness and attention. The central scientific distinction is between having an experience and explicitly noticing or representing that experience as one's current mental state. Schooler (2002); Schooler et al. (2011).

Meta-awareness helps people recognize distraction, changes in emotional state, mistakes in their own thinking, and the moment when deliberate attention could usefully be redirected. It is intermittent and fallible. Becoming aware that the mind has wandered does not establish that a person knows precisely when the wandering began, why it happened, or whether every aspect of the preceding experience can be accurately described. An important systematic review found substantial variation in the ways researchers elicit and record these moments of noticing, limiting direct comparisons between studies. Chu et al. (2023).

What Does Meta-Awareness Mean in Psychology?

In the experimental literature associated with Jonathan Schooler and colleagues, meta-awareness refers to the explicit noticing of the current contents or course of one's consciousness. Some publications use the closely related expression meta-consciousness. The idea is that an ongoing mental event, such as imagining tomorrow's conversation, can be experienced before the person forms an explicit representation of the fact that they are imagining it. This offers a way to investigate the difference between having a thought and recognizing the thought as a thought. Schooler (2002).

Consider a commuter looking out a train window. They begin rehearsing an upcoming meeting. Minutes later, they realize that they have been absorbed in rehearsal. The rehearsal is one mental activity; noticing that rehearsal has been taking place is another. This example illustrates the operational concept. It does not imply that the initial thoughts were unconscious or that meta-awareness gives privileged, perfectly accurate access to everything that occurred.

In contemporary research, the term is especially useful when investigators distinguish mind wandering with meta-awareness from mind wandering without spontaneously noticed awareness. Authors sometimes define the broader idea differently, and the boundaries of mind wandering itself remain debated. A scholarly account must therefore specify what task, report, and criterion make a particular observation count as meta-awareness. Chu et al. (2023); Seli et al. (2018).

Experiencing, Noticing, and Describing

Three events may occur in sequence. A person first experiences a mental episode; then recognizes what they are mentally doing; and finally describes that recognition to themselves or to an experimenter. These events can be close together, but they are analytically distinct. Researchers cannot assume that the last verbal description faithfully captures the entire earlier episode. Schooler's account explicitly identifies temporal dissociations, in which noticing arrives after the relevant experience began, and translation dissociations, in which a reflective description imperfectly represents what was originally experienced. Schooler (2002).

Meta-awareness therefore has both a phenomenological aspect—what it is like to notice a current mental event—and a measurement problem: how to infer a brief moment of noticing from a report or action. It is possible to experience sadness, visual imagery, or distraction without immediately giving it a name. When a person says, “I am worrying” or “My attention has moved,” explicit monitoring becomes easier to observe, but the verbal report is still evidence to evaluate rather than a transparent recording of the entire mind.

Meta-Awareness, Metacognition, Self-Awareness, and Attention

Meta-awareness belongs within the broader study of metacognition, which examines how people monitor and regulate their own cognition. The wider field also includes knowledge about learning strategies, confidence in decisions, judgments of memory, and control choices. Meta-awareness focuses on noticing ongoing experience, especially the current direction of attention or thought. A person can monitor the accuracy of a decision without explicitly noticing every thought that preceded it; likewise, a person can notice a drifting mind without assessing the correctness of any answer. Fleming (2024).

Self-awareness is broader in another direction. It can involve attention to one's emotions, behavior, social appearance, personal characteristics, bodily condition, or enduring self-concept. Meta-awareness may contribute to this larger ability whenever a present mental process becomes the focus of recognition. However, recognizing “I am planning dinner” is not equivalent to forming an accurate account of one's personality or motives.

Introspection is the deliberate examination or reporting of internal experience. Meta-awareness can arise spontaneously, without a structured attempt to investigate the mind, and introspection can involve reconstructing prior experiences after they have ended. Self-reflection typically involves sustained consideration of thoughts, actions, or meanings; meta-awareness may be the initial moment that makes that longer reflection possible. Rumination is repetitive thought that may be difficult to disengage from. A person can notice rumination while it continues, and the act of noticing alone does not guarantee that rumination stops.

Attention directs the processing of information, while meta-awareness can register where attention currently is or where it has gone. Consciousness and awareness are wider and contested concepts describing aspects of experience; wakefulness concerns an organism's state of arousal, and responsiveness concerns observable reactions. Being awake, responding to a question, focusing attention, feeling an experience, and explicitly recognizing that one's attention has shifted are different observations. Schooler et al. (2011).

A Practical Example of the Distinctions

During an online lecture, someone hears the speaker and then starts imagining a future vacation. Mind wandering concerns the shift into the internally generated train of thought. Meta-awareness occurs when the person notices, “I've been thinking about the trip.” Metacognitive control occurs if they choose to return to the lecture or make a note to plan later. Self-reflection begins if they later consider why the lecture lost their interest. None of those stages, considered alone, measures enduring intelligence, mental health, or the objective accuracy of the person's beliefs.

Why Meta-Awareness Matters for Mind Wandering

Mind wandering includes experiences in which thought departs from the demands of an ongoing task. Research also examines spontaneous thoughts in settings without an explicit task, so some investigators argue that no single criterion captures every form of wandering thought. Mind wandering may be deliberate or unintentional, pleasant or unpleasant, useful or disruptive. Its consequences depend on the setting, the contents of thought, and the person's goals. Smallwood and Schooler (2015); Seli et al. (2018).

Meta-awareness adds a second dimension: did the person recognize the drift while it was occurring? Someone may remain off task for a period and only notice when a sentence no longer makes sense. Another person may detect the shift quickly. In both situations there is a reportable experience of thinking; the difference concerns when the ongoing departure from the task becomes explicitly monitored.

An influential account links mind wandering to perceptual decoupling, in which processing becomes relatively less aligned with the immediate external environment, and to episodes of explicit awareness that the mind has wandered. This is a theoretical framework supported by several behavioral observations; it does not show that all mind wandering follows one invariant brain sequence. Schooler et al. (2011).

Mind Wandering Can Be Helpful as Well as Costly

Task-unrelated thought can interfere with reading comprehension, sustained attention, and some performance demands. At other times, internally generated thought can support future planning, personal problem solving, and creative incubation. In one experiment, a relatively undemanding activity during a break was associated with improvements on previously attempted creative problems, consistent with a role for wandering thought in some forms of incubation. That result does not mean deliberately distracting oneself improves every creative task. Smallwood and Schooler (2015); Baird et al. (2012).

The practical function of meta-awareness is consequently to provide information about the mind's current activity so that behavior can be aligned with present goals. Sometimes returning to the task is valuable; sometimes recognizing an interesting thought and recording it is valuable. The relevant question is not whether thoughts should wander, but whether a person can recognize what is happening and choose an appropriate response.

How Researchers Measure Meta-Awareness

Because meta-awareness is a momentary subjective process, researchers cannot directly observe it in the way they observe a key press or an eye movement. Experimental designs combine reported experience, behavioral performance, and sometimes physiological or neural measures. Each method addresses a particular question and carries assumptions about what participants can report. Chu et al. (2023).

Self-Caught Reports

In a self-caught procedure, a participant works on a task and presses a key whenever they spontaneously notice that their mind has wandered. A report documents an episode of noticed wandering, not the exact time when the attention shift began. This method comes relatively close to the central definition because it depends on the participant catching the shift without an external prompt.

A high number of self-caught episodes may indicate frequent drifting, frequent detection, or both. A low number may reflect sustained focus, unnoticed drifting, a reluctance to press the button, uncertainty about the instructions, or a change in how a participant defines wandering. It is therefore invalid to treat self-caught frequency alone as a pure or universally comparable measure of meta-awareness. Chu et al. (2023).

Probe-Caught Reports

In probe-caught designs, the task is interrupted at intervals and the person is asked whether attention was on task, where their thoughts had been directed, or whether they had already noticed any wandering. Such probes can reveal experiences that were not spontaneously reported. They also alter the task by introducing an external moment of reflection.

A probe that asks only “Were you on task?” measures reported task focus at that moment. It does not automatically establish whether the person possessed meta-awareness before the probe appeared. Better designs distinguish thoughts noticed spontaneously from thoughts noticed only when the prompt was presented. Methodological reviews caution that probe wording, timing, and response categories can meaningfully change the conclusions. Weinstein (2018); Chu et al. (2023).

Self-Caught and Probe-Caught Measures Together

Combining spontaneous reports with intermittent probes can help distinguish noticing from the amount of wandering thought, although the estimates remain model- and task-dependent. For example, two people might report similar amounts of task-unrelated thought when probed, but one might spontaneously catch such episodes more often. The difference motivates a hypothesis about meta-awareness; it is not definitive proof of a stable personal trait without further controls.

The 2023 systematic review by Chu and colleagues examined 39 studies using self-caught methods after screening 790 records for eligibility. The researchers identified paradigms involving continuous performance tasks, breath or sound monitoring, and everyday activities such as reading. Few studies documented both the reliability and validity of their measures, and design heterogeneity restricted synthesis. This is an important reason to avoid treating a single experimental score as an established diagnostic assessment or a universally comparable ability scale. Chu et al. (2023).

Experience Sampling in Everyday Life

Ecological momentary assessment asks people to report current thoughts or mental states in ordinary settings rather than only in the laboratory. It can capture patterns across locations, activities, and time of day. Such reports often provide better contextual diversity but remain vulnerable to differences in prompts, compliance, retrospective inference, and the influence of the question on the experience being measured. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the value of ecological designs for studying mind wandering while emphasizing variation in estimated prevalence and sampling practices. Kawashima et al. (2023).

Behavioral and Neural Measures

Researchers may record reaction-time variability, errors on sustained attention tasks, eye movements, or changes in brain activity alongside experience reports. These observations can provide converging evidence about fluctuations of attention. They are not interchangeable with first-person measures of noticing. An attentional lapse can occur without an explicit recognition of the lapse, and neural signals correlated with a reported state do not by themselves identify the complete phenomenology of the experience.

What Happens When Someone Notices a Wandering Mind?

A widely discussed model, developed in work on focused-attention meditation, describes a sequence of mind wandering, awareness of mind wandering, shifting attention back to a selected object, and sustained attention. In a functional MRI study, Hasenkamp and colleagues used practitioners' button presses to organize the timing of these proposed phases and examined associated brain activity. The phases offer a useful experimental description rather than a universal map of every instance of mental monitoring. Hasenkamp et al. (2012).

Recognition is the hinge in this model. A person becomes aware that their current cognitive activity differs from the intended focus, and that awareness may precede a decision about whether to redirect attention. The model helps distinguish monitoring from control: noticing that the mind has wandered is one event; returning attention to the breath, text, or task is another.

Neuroscience identifies multiple interacting systems associated with self-generated thought, salience, and executive control. Meditation studies also recruit partly different networks depending on the technique. A meta-analysis of 78 functional neuroimaging investigations reported distinct patterns across common meditation styles, alongside substantial methodological concerns. These findings support investigating distributed mechanisms rather than equating meta-awareness with a single brain region or using a brain image as a direct consciousness detector. Fox et al. (2016).

Detection May Arrive Late

When someone realizes they have missed a paragraph, the noticing takes place after at least some part of the distraction. Experiments can ask about awareness immediately before a report, but the onset and duration of the earlier state are difficult to reconstruct. This timing matters for practical claims. Catching distraction more frequently and preventing distraction from arising are separate outcomes that require different measurements.

What Can Trigger Noticing?

A contradiction in a sentence, a missed instruction, a sudden bodily sensation, an unexpected emotional change, or an explicit check-in can direct attention toward ongoing thought. An external reminder may support reflective checking, yet a prompted recognition should be distinguished from spontaneous self-caught awareness in research protocols. Different ways of eliciting noticing answer different scientific questions.

Meta-Awareness and Mindfulness

Mindfulness is commonly studied as a set of attention-related and awareness-related practices and dispositions. Certain forms of mindfulness practice invite people to observe current thoughts, feelings, and sensations and to notice when attention moves away from an intended focus. Meta-awareness is a relevant component of that activity, particularly at the moment of recognizing an attentional shift. It is narrower than the full set of processes grouped under mindfulness, which may also concern attitudes toward experience, attentional stability, and regulation. Mrazek, Smallwood, and Schooler (2012).

In a study comparing dispositional mindfulness with measures of mind wandering, Mrazek and colleagues found negative associations across multiple indicators; a brief mindful-breathing condition also reduced behavioral indicators of wandering relative to comparison conditions in that research program. These studies support a relationship between the constructs. They do not establish that every mindfulness questionnaire directly measures meta-awareness or that mindfulness interventions act through only one psychological mechanism. Mrazek, Smallwood, and Schooler (2012).

A randomized study of a two-week mindfulness training course reported improvements in working memory and reading-comprehension performance together with reductions in task-unrelated thoughts among the studied students. This offers experimental evidence about that specific training protocol and sample, with attention-related outcomes rather than a general guarantee of lasting improvements in meta-awareness for everyone. Mrazek et al. (2013).

Focused Attention and Open Monitoring

Focused-attention practice typically involves selecting an object, such as the breath, noticing when attention has moved, and returning attention to that object. Open-monitoring approaches place relatively greater emphasis on observing changes in experience as they arise. Researchers distinguish these styles because they recruit overlapping but nonidentical task demands and reported neural patterns. Differences between practices complicate broad claims that “meditation improves the brain” in one uniform way. Fox et al. (2016).

Observing Thoughts Does Not Require Suppressing Them

When a person notices, “I am worried about tomorrow,” meta-awareness has occurred even if the worry continues. The observation can create an opportunity to reconsider where to place attention. Whether the person changes the thought, accepts its presence, acts on a problem, or returns to another task is a later process. This is why meta-awareness can be discussed scientifically without reducing it to relaxation, thought suppression, or the ideal of maintaining uninterrupted attention.

Meta-Awareness, Emotion, and Rumination

Recognizing the current emotional tone of thought may be useful for understanding how attention and emotion interact. For example, someone may notice that a series of apparently practical plans has become repetitive worry. That is a plausible instance of meta-awareness. Evaluating the origins of the worry or choosing a coping strategy requires additional evidence and additional cognitive operations.

Research has explored correlations between patterns of wandering thought, depression symptoms, rumination, and mindfulness. In a study involving 200 participants, Nayda and Takarangi found associations among depressive symptom measures, mind wandering, brooding, and mindfulness-related measures. Its correlational design and measurement limitations prevent causal claims about whether reduced meta-awareness produces depression or whether noticing thought by itself treats a disorder. Nayda and Takarangi (2021).

A broader review of mind wandering and depression described the evidence as heterogeneous and called for more controlled studies that differentiate wandering from rumination and assess meta-awareness and intentionality. Researchers have similarly noted that anxiety-related studies require careful separation of overall wandering from repetitive worry. These literatures are informative about possible clinical relevance but do not justify diagnosing a person on the basis of frequent distraction or a self-reported difficulty noticing thoughts. Chaieb et al. (2022); Fell et al. (2023).

Meta-awareness is therefore a psychological process, not a clinical diagnosis. Persistent distress, major changes in functioning, or troubling symptoms should be evaluated in their own clinical context. A simple attention exercise cannot substitute for assessment or treatment when clinical care is needed.

Meta-Awareness in Learning, Work, and Everyday Decisions

The everyday value of noticing one's mental activity is clearest when it informs a choice. A student reading a challenging passage can recognize the transition from comprehension to unrelated thoughts and decide to reread. A professional preparing a report can notice the pull of an anticipated notification and silence it. Someone in a difficult conversation can identify that they are rehearsing a reply instead of listening and return to the other person's words.

These are illustrative applications of the construct rather than demonstrations that any one routine produces a measurable improvement in learning or occupational performance. Research on metacognitive monitoring more generally shows that beliefs about one's performance may be inferential and miscalibrated; becoming more attentive to a thought does not automatically make the thought correct. Fleming (2024).

A Simple Observation Routine

A modest, low-risk exercise is to choose a brief interval during an ordinary activity, notice the current focus of thought, label the observation in plain language, and decide whether attention belongs where it currently is. During reading, the question might be “What was I thinking about just before I checked?” During planning, it might be “Am I comparing options, remembering an earlier event, or rehearsing a worry?” The aim is to practice recognition without treating every wandering thought as failure.

For self-observation, distinguish spontaneous catching from intentionally checking. If a timer causes the realization, the timer served as a prompt. If the realization occurred before the timer, it resembles a self-caught report. Neither proves an increase in long-term cognitive ability. Recording brief patterns over time may reveal useful contexts, but numbers from personal logs should not be interpreted as standardized metacognitive scores.

When Redirecting Attention Makes Sense

Returning to the immediate task is useful when task demands require it—for example, reading safety instructions, handling a complicated calculation, or listening to another person's important information. During an appropriate break, allowing internally generated thought may be worthwhile. Experimental findings on creative incubation provide one reason to avoid treating uninterrupted task focus as the only valuable mental state. Baird et al. (2012).

Can Meta-Awareness Be Improved?

Some attention and mindfulness interventions have reported changes in mind wandering or task performance, but the evidence does not justify one global claim that every participant develops a durable, transferable capacity for meta-awareness. Different trials measure different outcomes: frequency of task-unrelated thoughts, response accuracy, working memory, mindfulness questionnaire responses, or self-caught reports. Improvement on one outcome does not automatically establish improvement on the others. Mrazek et al. (2013); Chu et al. (2023).

The most defensible practical approach is modest: create opportunities to recognize what the mind is doing, then select a response consistent with the task and circumstances. Researchers still need stronger longitudinal and comparative studies showing which components of training change spontaneous noticing, how long improvements last, and whether they transfer beyond the exercise where they were trained.

Scientific Limitations and Open Questions

The study of meta-awareness faces several persistent challenges. First, the underlying experience is temporally continuous while the observations are intermittent, usually triggered by a button press or question. Second, a participant must understand the instructions and be willing to report, making results sensitive to response conventions. Third, some thought episodes are deliberate and others spontaneous, and different studies draw the boundary differently. Fourth, participants may use retrospective inference when explaining what they were thinking. Schooler (2002); Seli et al. (2018); Chu et al. (2023).

A particularly important unresolved question is how to distinguish a person who seldom wanders from a person who frequently wanders but rarely notices it. Researchers also need to determine whether meta-awareness is strongly domain-general, or whether noticing distraction during reading, observing emotional changes, and recognizing uncertainty in a decision depend on partly different skills. Questions about developmental changes, ecological validity, individual differences, and the conditions under which monitoring helps or disrupts performance remain open.

Neuroscientific studies can correlate reports with dynamic patterns of activity, but different methods isolate different time windows and cognitive components. Current experiments provide useful models of how noticing and refocusing may occur; they do not offer a definitive neural signature of subjective self-observation. Treating any single training result, questionnaire score, or brain activation pattern as proof of comprehensive self-knowledge would go beyond the evidence. Hasenkamp et al. (2012); Fox et al. (2016).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is meta-awareness in simple terms?

Meta-awareness is noticing your current mental activity—for example, realizing that your thoughts have drifted while reading. It involves awareness of a mental process as it is occurring or has just occurred. Researchers distinguish this act of noticing from the original experience. Schooler (2002).

Is meta-awareness the same as mindfulness?

They are related, but mindfulness includes a wider range of practices and characteristics. Meta-awareness is particularly relevant to recognizing changes in attention, thoughts, or emotions. It can occur inside or outside formal mindfulness practice. Mrazek, Smallwood, and Schooler (2012).

Can someone be conscious of a thought without meta-awareness?

Yes. In an influential theoretical account, an experience can occur before the person explicitly notices or re-represents that experience. The distinction helps explain why a reader can be absorbed in unrelated thoughts before realizing that they stopped following the text. The exact boundaries among consciousness, access, and reporting remain active scientific and philosophical questions. Schooler (2002).

How do I know whether I am meta-aware?

A clear everyday example is recognizing what your attention or thought is doing: “I'm replaying that conversation,” “My thoughts have wandered,” or “I'm anticipating an error.” Such recognition illustrates the concept. A personal impression is not a validated laboratory measure, and researchers often use self-caught and probe-caught methods for more structured investigation. Chu et al. (2023).

Is meta-awareness the same as introspection?

Introspection commonly involves deliberate examination or reporting of mental life. Meta-awareness can arise spontaneously as a brief recognition and may then lead to introspection. Introspective accounts can also reinterpret earlier experience, which is one reason reflective report and the original episode should be distinguished. Schooler (2002).

Does more meta-awareness mean fewer thoughts?

No. Recognizing that thoughts are occurring is a different outcome from reducing their number or frequency. A person can become aware of an ongoing thought and let it continue. Studies that report less mind wandering after training do not automatically show that an independent capacity for noticing improved. Chu et al. (2023).

Can meta-awareness help with studying or concentration?

Noticing a lapse may help someone decide to return to material that matters. Selected mindfulness studies have reported less mind wandering and better task performance, but those results depend on the studied intervention, measures, and population. A universal effect on grades or concentration has not been established. Mrazek et al. (2013).

Is difficulty noticing mind wandering a symptom of a mental disorder?

Difficulty noticing attention drift can occur in ordinary life and is not a diagnosis. Some clinical research examines patterns of mind wandering, mindfulness, worry, and rumination, but their relationships are complex and cannot establish an individual diagnosis from a single observation or self-report. Chaieb et al. (2022).

Is meta-awareness relevant to AI systems?

Researchers sometimes apply metacognitive language to AI monitoring or self-evaluation, where the measurable outputs are confidence estimates, error detection, or reports about processing. Human meta-awareness research relies heavily on first-person reports of experienced mental activity. Behavioral similarities in reports do not establish subjective experience in an AI system. Claims about machine consciousness require their own philosophical and empirical analysis, outside the scope of this human-psychology article.

Related Reading

For a published English Hub discussion of cognitive monitoring in human–AI work, read Metacognition in the Age of AI: How to Monitor Your Thinking When AI Helps You Think. For the evidence and limits of mindfulness as a stress-related intervention, see Mindfulness for Stress: Benefits, Evidence, and Limitations. These topics have distinct search intents: the present article concerns the moment-to-moment noticing of mental processes.

References

Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446024.

Chaieb, L., Hoppe, C., & Fell, J. (2022). Mind wandering and depression: A status report. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 133, 104505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.12.028.

Chu, M. T., Marks, E., Smith, C. L., & Chadwick, P. (2023). Self-caught methodologies for measuring mind wandering with meta-awareness: A systematic review. Consciousness and Cognition, 108, 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103463.

Fell, J., Chaieb, L., & Hoppe, C. (2023). Mind wandering in anxiety disorders: A status report. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 154, 105432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105432.

Fleming, S. M. (2024). Metacognition and confidence: A review and synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 241–268. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425.

Fox, K. C. R., Dixon, M. L., Nijeboer, S., Girn, M., Floman, J. L., Lifshitz, M., Ellamil, M., Sedlmeier, P., & Christoff, K. (2016). Functional neuroanatomy of meditation: A review and meta-analysis of 78 functional neuroimaging investigations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.021.

Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Duncan, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2012). Mind wandering and attention during focused meditation: A fine-grained temporal analysis of fluctuating cognitive states. NeuroImage, 59(1), 750–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.008.

Kawashima, I., Hinuma, T., & Tanaka, S. C. (2023). Ecological momentary assessment of mind-wandering: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Scientific Reports, 13, 2873. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29854-9.

Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659.

Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12(3), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026678.

Nayda, D. M., & Takarangi, M. K. T. (2021). The cost of being absent: Is meta-awareness of mind-wandering related to depression symptom severity, rumination tendencies and trauma intrusions? Journal of Affective Disorders, 292, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.053.

Schooler, J. W. (2002). Re-representing consciousness: Dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01949-6.

Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.006.

Seli, P., Kane, M. J., Smallwood, J., Schacter, D. L., Maillet, D., Schooler, J. W., & Smilek, D. (2018). Mind-wandering as a natural kind: A family-resemblances view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(6), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.010.

Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331.

Weinstein, Y. (2018). Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 642–661. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9.