Cited by 177Memory Processes and InfluencesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Human Metacognition Across Domains: Insights from Individual Differences and Neuroimaging

Open access
Rouault, Marion, McWilliams, Andrew, Allen, Micah G., Fleming, Stephen M.·2018·Personality Neuroscience

Abstract

Metacognition is the capacity to evaluate and control one’s own cognitive processes. Metacognition operates over a range of cognitive domains, such as perception and memory, but the neurocognitive architecture supporting this ability remains controversial. Is metacognition enabled by a common, domain-general resource that is recruited to evaluate performance on a variety of tasks? Or is metacognition reliant on domain-specific modules? This article reviews recent literature on the domain-generality of human metacognition, drawing on evidence from individual differences and neuroimaging. A meta-analysis of behavioral studies found that perceptual metacognitive ability was correlated across different sensory modalities, but found no correlation between metacognition of perception and memory. However, evidence for domain-generality from behavioral data may suffer from a lack of power to identify correlations across model parameters indexing metacognitive efficiency. Neuroimaging data provide a complementary perspective on the domain-generality of metacognition, revealing co-existence of neural signatures that are common and distinct across tasks. We suggest that such an architecture may be appropriate for “tagging” generic feelings of confidence with domain-specific information, in turn forming the basis for priors about self-ability and modulation of higher-order behavioral control.

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 · 10.1017/pen.2018.16

Cites

113 of 114 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 generative nature of GenAI means that many user workflows will or have shifted from users generating content to evaluating it.

    “The generative nature of GenAI-its 'originality' [157]-means that many user workflows will or have shifted from users generating content to evaluating it [149,154], as already documented in programming [156] and manufacturing design [70].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [149]

    The Abstract and 'How does confidence guide behavior?' section discuss evaluating one’s own cognitive performance, not evaluating GenAI-generated content. Searches for GenAI, content creation, and workflow changes found no passage addressing a shift from generating content to evaluating it. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This imposes a distinct metacognitive demand on users that must make these decisions.

    “We argue that this imposes a distinct metacognitive demand on users that must make these decisions, akin to [149], who make a similar argument for digital storage and memory.”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [149]

    The Abstract defines metacognition as monitoring and controlling cognitive processes, including memory and decisions, but does not discuss digital storage. Searches for digital storage and decisions about what to store found no passage making the similar argument attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • As we offload more of our cognition to today's GenAI systems, the demand for our metacognition increases.

    “Analogously, as we offload more of our cognition to today's GenAI systems, the demand for our metacognition increases [149].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [149]

    The Abstract defines metacognition as evaluating and controlling one’s own cognitive processes, and “How does confidence guide behavior?” discusses its role in learning and cognitive control. Neither passage addresses whether offloading cognition to GenAI increases the demand for metacognition. Searches for cognitive offloading, external tools, and increased metacognitive demand found no passage making that connection. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chua E. F., Pergolizzi D. Weintraub R. R. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of metamemory monitoring: Understanding metamemory processes, subjective levels expressed, and metacognitive accuracy. In S. M. Fleming & C. D. Frith (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of metacognition (pp. 267–291). Berlin: Springer.
  2. Dunlosky J. Metcalfe J. (2008). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouault, M., McWilliams, A., Allen, M. G., & Fleming, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Fleming, Stephen M.
Venue
Personality Neuroscience
Published
2018
Volume
1
Pages
e17
ISSN
2513-9886 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899651677
Cited by
176
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Personality Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z, 203147, 206648, 203147/Z/16/)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2015-17-019)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
metacognition, domain generality, individual differences, confidence, self-assessment, sensory modalities, metacognitive efficiency

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