是誰在恍神？探討個體注意力覺察傾向、身體覺察能力與工作記憶廣度在不同作業情境下對心神漫遊傾向的影響

當一個人的注意力從手邊的工作偏離而沈浸在其他無關想法時，就處於心神漫遊狀態而可能妨害作業表現。為了釐清過去有關心神漫遊在理論上與證據上的不一致，本論文以三個參與者內設計的實驗檢驗個體覺察傾向在不同作業情境下如何影響不同工作記憶廣度者認知資源的使用--用於調控以減少心神漫遊或是繼續維持心神漫遊。實驗一（N = 157）以常用於測量正念特質（mindfulness trait）中覺察當下特質的止觀傾向量表（Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale）代表個體注意力覺察傾向。結果顯示透過思維探針擷取的心神漫遊與工作記憶廣度的關係會受到個體注意力覺察傾向的調節，而且調節的效果也因作業認知負荷量改變而有所不同，支持我所提出的「心神漫遊的覺察調節假設」。實驗二（N = 82）則發現工作記憶廣度與覺察傾向無法預測由刺激誘發的心神漫遊傾向，然而在作業程序與難度相當但沒有明顯外在誘發刺激的注意力維持作業中，工作記憶廣度及注意力覺察傾向皆能預測心神漫遊傾向。實驗三（N = 171）以更高難度的作業、兩種心神漫遊指標（探針擷取以及作業反應時間的變異值）以及不同面向的覺察指標（注意力與身體覺察）重覆驗證實驗一。結果顯示在高難度的作業情境中，注意力覺察高低可以預測探針攫取的心神漫遊傾向，以及會調節高工作記憶廣度者的反應時間變異值。此外，本體覺覺察能力愈好的個體，該變異值愈低，特別對工作記憶廣度低者的影響更為明顯。本論文的發現有助於釐清影響心神漫遊發生到調節的歷程與機制，並對過去工作記憶廣度與心神漫遊間的關係提供一個整合的解釋。同時也首次發現本體覺覺察能力跟心神漫遊有關，而且其影響獨立於由上而下的調控途徑，有助於未來進一步探討正念相關訓練在注意力成效方面的可能機制。

關鍵字

心神漫遊；工作記憶廣度；正念；覺察；執行控制；注意力

並列摘要

Mind wandering (MW), a common experience in which one’s attention turns from the ongoing task toward task-unrelated thought, can impair performance on the task at hand. To clarify the inconsistencies between existing hypotheses and findings in MW research, I hypothesized that awareness would affect MW. Specifically, I hypothesized that one’s tendency to be aware of the present moment would affect the use of one’s cognitive resources with regard to reducing or maintaining MW, and this would in turn moderate the relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and MW tendency. Three experiments following a within-participant design were conducted under different tasks. In Experiment 1 (N = 157), the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale, a commonly used assessment of mindfulness, was administered to measure the trait of attentional awareness (AA). Consistent with the hypothesis, the WMC–MW tendency relationship, measured using thought probes, was moderated by AA, the effects of which varied under different task load conditions. In Experiment 2 (N = 82), in the condition that the MW mostly induced by external stimuli could not be predicted by either WMC or AA. However, in the control condition, in which MW was not induced by external stimuli, WMC and AA predicted MW tendency. Experiment 3 (N = 171) had the same design as Experiment 1 but featured more demanding tasks and involved the use of two MW indexes (thought probes and the response time coefficient of variation [RTCV]) as well as different facets of awareness (AA and body awareness). In a highly demanding condition, AA predicted MW tendency and moderated the relationship between WMC and RTCV. Moreover, participants with better proprioception awareness, especially those with low WMC, had smaller RTCVs. This study tested an integrative hypothesis regarding the mechanism of MW regulation. The findings provide a reasonable explanation for the conflicting evidence on the relationship between WMC and MW. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first report of a relationship between proprioception awareness and MW, and the related mechanism of how proprioception awareness could help MW regulation was discussed. The findings provide implications for mindfulness research on how mindfulness helps enhance attentional ability.