CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relating inter-individual differences in metacognitive performance on different perceptual tasks

Open access
Song, Chen, Kanai, Ryota, Fleming, Stephen M., Weil, Rimona S., Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel, Rees, Geraint·2011·Consciousness and Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.011PMC PMC3203218
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Human behavior depends on the ability to effectively introspect about our performance. For simple perceptual decisions, this introspective or metacognitive ability varies substantially across individuals and is correlated with the structure of focal areas in prefrontal cortex. This raises the possibility that the ability to introspect about different perceptual decisions might be mediated by a common cognitive process. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether inter-individual differences in metacognitive ability were correlated across two different perceptual tasks where individuals made judgments about different and unrelated visual stimulus properties. We found that inter-individual differences were strongly correlated between the two tasks for metacognitive ability but not objective performance. Such stability of an individual's metacognitive ability across different perceptual tasks indicates a general mechanism supporting metacognition independent of the specific task.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.011

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Schematic depiction of experiment paradigm. (a) Participants made a two-interval forced choice judgment on which temporal interval contained the grating that popped out in contrast (task one) or orientation (task two). Following their objective perceptual judgment, participants also provided a rating of confidence in their visual performance. (b) To induce uncertainty about the visual judgments, the parameter (contrast in task one, orientation in task two) of the pop-out grating was varied in the 2-up-1-down staircase fashion to keep each participant’s performance near threshold. The participants’ visual performance was evaluated by the average parameter of the pop-out grating, i.e., the discrimination threshold. (c) Metacognitive ability was quantified by the interrelationship between confidence ratings and the accuracy of visual judgments using the type II receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which characterized the probability of being correct for a given level of confidence.
Fig. 1 Schematic depiction of experiment paradigm. (a) Participants made a two-interval forced choice judgment on which temporal interval contained the grating that popped out in contrast (task one) or orientation (task two). Following their objective perceptual judgment, participants also provided a rating of confidence in their visual performance. (b) To induce uncertainty about the visual judgments, the parameter (contrast in task one, orientation in task two) of the pop-out grating was varied in the 2-up-1-down staircase fashion to keep each participant’s performance near threshold. The participants’ visual performance was evaluated by the average parameter of the pop-out grating, i.e., the discrimination threshold. (c) Metacognitive ability was quantified by the interrelationship between confidence ratings and the accuracy of visual judgments using the type II receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which characterized the probability of being correct for a given level of confidence.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Experiment results. (a) For both tasks, there existed no correlation between visual performance and metacognitive ability or mean confidence level. (b) Metacognitive ability and confidence level were not correlated. (c) Though participants’ visual performance was not correlated across two tasks, correlations were observed between task-specific metacognitive abilities, and between task-specific mean confidence levels. Moreover, while metacognitive ability did not show significant difference between two tasks, mean confidence level was much lower in task two (orientation discrimination task) than task one (contrast discrimination task).
Fig. 2 Experiment results. (a) For both tasks, there existed no correlation between visual performance and metacognitive ability or mean confidence level. (b) Metacognitive ability and confidence level were not correlated. (c) Though participants’ visual performance was not correlated across two tasks, correlations were observed between task-specific metacognitive abilities, and between task-specific mean confidence levels. Moreover, while metacognitive ability did not show significant difference between two tasks, mean confidence level was much lower in task two (orientation discrimination task) than task one (contrast discrimination task).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 158

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Song, C., Kanai, R., Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Schwarzkopf, D. S., & Rees, G.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Song, Chen
ORCID
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
1787-1792
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.011
PMC
PMC3203218
OpenAlex
W2075703907
Cited by
158
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (082334)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
metacognition, individual differences, perceptual decision making, self-reflection, prefrontal cortex, visual perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Individuality, Judgment, Male, Photic Stimulation, Task Performance and Analysis, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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