The effects of mind-wandering on musical practice or performance are still unknown. However, several studies (Banks & Boals, 2017; Kane et al., 2007; Levinson et al., 2012; McVay & Kane, 2009, 2012; Robinson & Unsworth, 2017; Stawarczyk et al., 2014; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013) have evidenced its detrimental effects on tasks that rely mostly on working memory (i.e. Sustained Attention Response Task, SART). However, there is also evidence suggesting that working memory may also play an important role in musical practice (Brown and Palmer, 2013)
Musicians make very extensive use of their working memory capacity when learning new pieces, and technique, and visualizing sounds and gestures (Brown and Palmer, 2013). In an experiment investigating the visualization or mental imagery ability of skilled pianists, Brown and Palmer indicated that those with higher working memory capacity had a greater ability to inhibit irrelevant auditory information, better maintaining and manipulating those imagined melodies. Visualization is a fundamental part of musical practice, as it allows the musician to work with auditory information without having to constantly play to hear the sounds. Therefore, the ability to control attention through working memory may face thought control in the face of intrusive thoughts that characterize the wandering mind. Based on Brown and Palmer's study, and in the absence of articles investigating the role of the wandering mind during music practice, we have no option but to rely on those investigations that employ tasks that rely on working memory outside the realm of music to understand how mind-wandering may impact musicians during their practice (Christoff et al., 2009; Levinson et al., 2012; Stawarczyk et al., 2014; Banks & Boals, 2017; Kane et al., 2007; McVay & Kane, 2009, 2012; Robinson & Unsworth, 2017; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013).
Contextual variables to mind wandering
Therefore, it is suggested that although cognitive variables such as greater attentional control, determined by WMC, partially contribute to better thought control and performance in the face of mind-wandering, there should be more influencing factors in the occurrence of a wandering mind. Robinson et al (2020)’s multifaceted framework illustrate how mind-wandering depends on contextual variables or in-the-moment differences among individuals that may predict mind-wandering. It is important to consider these variables since they may affect how frequently and intensely musicians wander in the practice room. If these variables were not considered, we would be assuming that any distraction process or inability to focus during musical practice is merely due to a lack of attentional or cognitive capacity.
Task difficulty
Regardless of theoretical incongruencies, it seems that both too-high and too-low demands frequently lead to the occurrence of mind-wandering. When the attentional demands of a task are too low, people tend to mind-wander more often (Levinson et al., 2012; Stawarczyk et al., 2014), whereas when task demands increase, distraction decreases (Mcvay & Kane 2009, 2012; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013). Nonetheless, evidence by Xu & Metcalfe (2016) seems to bring together the afore-discussed studies. They discovered a curvilinear relationship between task demands and mind-wandering. In this study, it was concluded that mind-wandering will occur least often when task demands are moderate. In theory, at extremely low levels of attentional demand, musicians would be bored and able to simultaneously practice and mind-wander frequently. On the other hand, at extremely high levels of attentional demand, musicians would be overwhelmed and mind-wander because they either cannot fully engage with the musical practice or because they choose not to put forth the effort required. However, we cannot draw any clear conclusions about how mind-wandering may occur or interact with task demands during musical practice, since the difficulty and nature of executing a musical instrument is very different from the execution of the SART, used to measure mind-wandering in the above studies.
Another important parameter in examining task difficulty and how it impacts mind-wandering is the distinction between intentional and unintentional mind-wandering, which will be addressed later in this review chapter.
Mind-wandering and working memory
There exist two prevalent theories regarding the occurrence of mind-wandering: the cognitive failure theory and the theory of perceptual decoupling. The cognitive failure theory states that individuals with higher attention span (attentional capacity), as determined by their working memory capacity, tend to suffer less mind-wandering in the face of complex tasks (McVay & Kane 2009, 2012; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013). This would happen due to an inhibitory role of working memory during cognitively demanding tasks. Thus, working memory would buffer against mind-wandering in tasks that require high cognitive effort. On the other hand, those authors who advocate the perceptual decoupling theory (Christoff et al., 2009; Levinson et al., 2012; Stawarczyk et al., 2014), claim that mind-wandering is an internal process separated from the external environment and, therefore, it independently competes with external task performance for the focus of attention. Mental distraction would not be an absence of attention, but rather a reallocation of attention to an internal train of thought to ensure its continuity. In this theory, mind wandering is a resource-consuming phenomenon. According to the perceptual decoupling theory, individuals with more working memory capacity would be more likely to suffer rumination when faced with simple tasks, which do not require many cognitive resources, because they have more available resources.
However, exceptions and ambiguities in different studies examining the role of working memory capacity (WMC) during mind-wandering compromise draw a clear dividing line between those advocating the cognitive failure theory and those relying on the perceptual decoupling theory. For instance, Kane et al. (2007), found that while participants with higher working memory capacity (WMC) ruminated less and had greater attention on complex tasks, which supports the executive control failure theory, higher WMC subjects were also more likely to wander than lower WMC subjects in the face of low demands, which would favor the perceptual decoupling theory (where working memory would maintain mind-wandering). The opposite, occurred for low WMC individuals, who wandered more as task challenge and effort increased. These results were corroborated in the Levinson et al. (2012) study, where, although individuals with higher WMC demonstrated greater attentional capacity by rushing less to respond to incongruent distractors, they also reported more mind-wandering on simple tasks.
On the other hand, it has been found that attentional control is not always related to working memory capacity and, also, does not always fully contribute to the control of mind-wandering. For example, in Stawarczyk et al. (2014), mind-wandering was not related to WMC but was related to attentional control. However, the frequency of mind-wandering remained a predictor of performance on the SART independently of attentional control, which means that other factors besides attentional control may be contributing to the occurrence of mind-wandering. This is corroborated in McVay (2009, 2012), where mind wandering predicted performance through WMC only partially, and in Unsworth & McMillan (2013), where WMC predicted mind wandering, but in combination with other factors such as interest and motivation.
Fatigue and stress
According to Robinson et al. (2020)’s multifaceted framework, fatigue appears to be one of these variables mind-wandering would be more likely to occur when musicians report feeling tired (Kane et al., 2007). Another variable in the occurrence of mind-wandering may be musicians' levels of stress and personal concerns. According to the concerns theory (McVay & Kane, 2010), thoughts related to mind-wandering are often related to unresolved short-term and/or long-term personal goals (Kane et al., 2007; Banks & Boals, 2017; Robinson & Unsworth, 2017). For instance, Kane (2007) found that mind-wandering occurred more frequently when participants were tired or stressed. Banks & Boals (2017) corroborated these findings by demonstrating that daily life stressors increase mind wandering, thus decreasing working memory performance. In Robinson and Unsworth (2017), a significant, weak, indirect effect of neuroticism on mind-wandering through attention was found, which would suggest that neuroticism is related to poor executive control, which in turn is related to more frequent mind-wandering. Even though her anxiety was not measured directly, neuroticism is a dispositional trait featured by high levels of anxiety. These studies would suggest an ostensible relationship between anxiety and mind-wandering during musical practice.
Motivation
In addition to fatigue, stress, and worry, prior research has demonstrated that individual differences in motivation, (Kane et al. 2007; Unsworth & Mc Millan, 2013; Brosowsky et al., 2020) would play an important role in the occurrence of a wandering mind. In Kane et al. (2007), participants' minds wandered more frequently when taking part in boring or not pleasant activities. In Unsworth and McMillan (2013), low levels of interest led to low levels of motivation, which, in turn, led to higher rates of mind-wandering in reading comprehension. This idea was reinforced by Brosowsky et al. (2020), who found a negative correlation between motivation and mind-wandering, affecting the MRT task. These results would point to the fact that motivation plays a fundamental role in the occurrence of mind-wandering during instrumental practice.
Dispositional variables
Besides cognitive or contextual variables, Robinson’s framework also emphasizes the importance of dispositional ones such as mindfulness or neuroticism. In Christoff et al. (2009) and McVay et al.(2009), it was observed that awareness of mind-wandering would reduce its distracting effect. Meta-awareness would therefore be an important psychological tool for the musician to maintain attentional control and overcome mind-wandering. Musicians may therefore improve their vulnerability to distractions by becoming more aware of them.
Spontaneous and deliberate mind-wandering
While researchers have focused extensively on the complexity of the object of focus, concluding that mind-wandering would occur most often when task demands are either too high or too low (Xu & Metcalfe, 2016), not so much work has been done concerning the intentionality of mind-wandering, that is, whether the occurrence of this mental state is deliberate or spontaneous (Seli et al., 2016). About music practice, intentional vs unintentional mind-wandering creates a distinction between a concentrated, self-aware musician and a distracted one. Unintentional mind-wandering lacks a particular moment of voluntary initiation and individuals are likely not to be aware that they are mind-wandering. In contrast, intentional mind-wandering is associated with a conscious moment of intention to initiate (or to continue) a mind-wandering episode. Moreover, intentional mind-wandering is not associated with surprise or feelings of a lack of control since this kind of rumination is being monitored by the individual.
Interestingly, a state of unintentional mind-wandering has been associated with the solving of difficult tasks, while a state of intentional mind-wandering is more common during the execution of easy ones (Seli et al., 2016, 2018). Thus, it may be possible that musicians facing a relatively easy and automatized task may decide not to invest cognitive effort and let their mind wander (intentional mind-wandering) while when facing a challenging piece they would be more likely to mind-wander involuntarily. Importantly, according to Seli (2016-b), it is possible that an intentional mind-wandering episode may begin without intention but later be brought into awareness and perpetuated, and vice versa. Thus, a musician could start mind-wandering unintentionally and then become self-aware of his wandering state and choose to further it, while another one may begin by choosing to wander but lose awareness of this state turning it into an undesired or unintended state. Another reason for distinguishing between these two types of mind-wandering is that while unintentional mind-wandering has been associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, intentional mind-wandering may buffer against these types of affective states (Seli et al. 2019). That is by gaining control of their rumination, musicians may be able to become less anxious.
Summary
Dispositional variables such as the difficulty of the piece, stress, motivation, and dispositional variables such as mindfulness may influence the propensity of the musician to mind-wander. Moreover, distinguishing between spontaneous and deliberate types of mind-wandering may seem relevant when discerning between focused and distracted musicians. Given the evidenced impact of the different contextual variables on the propensity of individuals to mind-wander (task difficulty, fatigue, stress, motivation), as well as the importance of distinguishing between spontaneous and deliberate mind-wandering states, they will be all included as variables in the following study, which examines, among other things, the effects of mindfulness on violinists propensity to mind-wander.