Design

The current study explores cross-sectional differences between functional connectivity and experience. Neurocognitive function during the resting state was measured on Day One and subjective experience on a subsequent laboratory session on Day Two. This design choice was motivated by limitations in the method for assessing subjective experience. Prior studies have either assessed experience while measuring neural activity online [7–10, 24] or have relied on retrospective measures of the thoughts that emerge during the resting state [14, 25]. Although online experience sampling provides information on the link between experience and on-going neural function, the method disrupts the normal time course of brain activity signals [26]. Moreover, acquiring experience sampling data simultaneously while recording neuroimaging data runs the risk of confounding measures of spontaneous thought with the participants’ expectation of the purpose of the experiment—a problem known as reactivity [26]. Alternative approaches rely on participants’ ability to retrospectively assess the contents of their experience, usually via a questionnaire at the end of the study [25, 27]. Although retrospective measures preserve the natural dynamics of the brain, and minimise the reactive effects of thought probes, they rely on the participant’s ability to correctly remember the experiences they had during the period in question. This method, therefore, raises the concern that problems with memory will lead to biases in the results produced [2]. By assessing the contents of thought using online experience sampling on a different day from the collection of resting state data, we were able to explore individual differences in the covariance between the content of thought and associated neural processes without relying on the participants’ memory. This approach has been successfully used to explore a number of forms of higher-order thought including meta-cognition [28], binocular rivalry [29] and reading comprehension [30].