... Among the studies cited in the previous paragraph, there is considerable variability in how performance was measured, with some focusing primarily on reaction time (RT) measures, such as mean RTs (e.g., Smallwood et al., 2011Smallwood et al., , 2012, fraction of the slowest or fastest RTs (e.g., Unsworth & Robison, 2016;van den Brink et al., 2016) or RT variability (e.g., Murphy et al., 2011); and others focusing more on perceptual sensitivity (i.e., d 0 : Beatty, 1982;Hopstaken et al., 2015aHopstaken et al., , 2015b or self-reported measures of task engagement (e.g., Franklin et al., 2013;Grandchamp et al., 2014;Mittner et al., 2014). Task demands also vary considerably across experiments, with some requiring only simple target detection (e.g., Massar et al., 2016) and others requiring simultaneous (Beatty, 1982;Gilzenrat et al., 2010;Murphy et al., 2011;van den Brink et al., 2016) or successive (Hopstaken et al., 2015a(Hopstaken et al., , 2015b(Hopstaken et al., , 2016Smallwood et al., 2011Smallwood et al., , 2012 discrimination. 1 Further, some tasks called for prolonged continuous monitoring (Beatty, 1982;Murphy et al., 2011), whereas others entailed intermittent breaks from the primary task (e.g., Hopstaken et al., 2015b;Smallwood et al., 2004;Unsworth & Robison, 2016), which even when very short have the potential to improve performance by temporarily boosting motivation (Ariga & Lleras, 2011;Ralph et al., 2016;Ross et al., 2014). Finally, the stimuli varied substantially, and some may have had undesirable behavioural or pupillometric consequences. ...