Cited by 102Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Science and Education Research

Know thyself: Metacognitive networks and measures of consciousness

Pasquali, Antoine, Timmermans, Bert, Cleeremans, Axel·2010·Cognition

Abstract

Subjective measures of awareness rest on the assumption that conscious knowledge is knowledge that participants know they possess. Post-Decision Wagering (PDW), recently proposed as a new measure of awareness, requires participants to place a high or a low wager on their decisions. Whereas advantageous wagering indicates awareness of the knowledge on which the decisions are based, cases in which participants fail to optimize their wagers suggest performance without awareness. Here, we hypothesize that wagering and other subjective measures of awareness reflect metacognitive capacities subtended by self-developed metarepresentations that inform an agent about its own internal states. To support this idea, we present three simulations in which neural networks learn to wager on their own responses. The simulations illustrate essential properties that are required for such metarepresentations to influence PDW as a measure of awareness. Results demonstrate a good fit to human data. We discuss the implications of this modeling work for our understanding of consciousness and its measures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.010

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making.

    “This pattern of findings suggests that rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making, supporting the notion of segregated neural process governing metacognitive access22,24,26.”

    From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [24]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 102

Authors
Pasquali, A., Timmermans, B., & Cleeremans, A.
Affiliations
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • University Hospital Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
Pasquali, Antoine
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
117
Issue
2
Pages
182-190
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125587475
Cited by
102
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Social Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
metacognition, consciousness, awareness, metarepresentation, self-knowledge, neural network simulation
MeSH terms
Awareness, Computer Simulation, Consciousness, Decision Making, Gambling, Learning, Models, Neurological, Self Concept

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review