Cited by 208Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Distinct brain mechanisms for conscious versus subliminal error detection

Open access
Charles, Lucie, Van Opstal, Filip, Marti, Sébastien, Dehaene, Stanislas·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Metacognition, the ability to monitor one's own cognitive processes, is frequently assumed to be univocally associated with conscious processing. However, some monitoring processes, such as those associated with the evaluation of one's own performance, may conceivably be sufficiently automatized to be deployed non-consciously. Here, we used simultaneous electro- and magneto-encephalography (EEG/MEG) to investigate how error detection is modulated by perceptual awareness of a masked target digit. The Error-Related Negativity (ERN), an EEG component occurring ~100 ms after an erroneous response, was exclusively observed on conscious trials: regardless of masking strength, the amplitude of the ERN showed a step-like increase when the stimulus became visible. Nevertheless, even in the absence of an ERN, participants still managed to detect their errors at above-chance levels under subliminal conditions. Error detection on conscious trials originated from the posterior cingulate cortex, while a small response to non-conscious errors was seen in dorsal anterior cingulate. We propose the existence of two distinct brain mechanisms for metacognitive judgements: a conscious all-or-none process of single-trial response evaluation, and a non-conscious statistical assessment of confidence.

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.neuroimage.2013.01.054

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The framework predicts that global top-down signals related to working memory content depend on a conscious model, while some modular signals can persist non-consciously; this is supported by auditory mismatch negativity preserved in coma, sleep, or inattention while a later P3 to global sequence violation occurs only consciously, and by motor error-related negativity occurring only when the error

    “This framework predicts that, while some signals within modular pathways may persist under non-conscious conditions, global top-down signals related to the content of working memory depend on the availability of a conscious model.”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Charles et al., 2013

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Pe has been linked to error awareness and shown to covary with subjective confidence, whereas the ERN and its pMFC source are thought to also operate unconsciously.

    “The Pe (described in the previous section as being a candidate for postdecisional evidence accumulation) has been linked to error awareness and shown to covary with subjective confidence, whereas the ERN and its pMFC source are thought to also operate unconsciously (Charles et al. 2013).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Charles et al. 2013

    The Discussion (‘Computational models of the ERN’; page unavailable) links the Pe to error awareness and reports a trial-by-trial correlation with confidence. But the Discussion (‘Brain regions involved in error monitoring’; page unavailable) says no ERN was present on unseen trials, even when participants correctly evaluated their performance. The Results report some transient dACC activity on unseen trials, so the claim about unconscious activity in a possible ERN source has limited support, but extending it to the ERN itself overstates the paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Forms of propositional confidence that remain restricted to a particular sensorimotor pathway and are not globally shared may underpin nonconscious forms of metacognition.

    “This implies that forms of propositional confidence that remain restricted to a particular sensorimotor pathway and are not globally shared may underpin nonconscious forms of metacognition (Charles et al. 2013, Logan & Crump 2010).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Charles et al. 2013

    The Discussion (‘Metacognition without consciousness’; page unavailable) says second-order confidence information can be computed nonconsciously and reports above-chance error detection on unseen trials. It does not characterize that confidence as propositional, restricted to a particular sensorimotor pathway, or not globally shared. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charles, L., Van Opstal, F., Marti, S., & Dehaene, S.
Affiliations
Université Paris-Sud (FR)
Corresponding author
Charles, Lucie
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
73
Pages
80-94
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007452435
Cited by
208
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 6
FWCI
12.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Direction Générale de l'Armement
  • European Research Council
  • INSERM
  • CEA
  • the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • the Bettencourt-Schueller foundation
  • the Région île-de-France
  • Research Foundation — Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen).
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
error detection, metacognition, subliminal perception, error-related negativity, posterior cingulate cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, perceptual awareness, treatment response assessment, confidence estimation
MeSH terms
Behavior, Brain, Cognition, Consciousness, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Software, Subliminal Stimulation, Visual Perception, Magnetoencephalography, Signal Detection, Psychological, 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