Cited by 33Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

A decision-congruent heuristic gives superior metacognitive sensitivity under realistic variance assumptions.

Open access
Miyoshi, Kiyofumi, Lau, Hakwan·2020·Psychological Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Psychophysical studies on confidence construction are often grounded in bidimensional signal detection theory (SDT) and its relatives. However, these studies often stand on oversimplified assumptions of (a) bidimensional variance-equality and (b) bidimensional statistical independence. The present study simulated 2-alternative forced-choice and confidence rating performances, incorporating more empirically plausible variance-covariance structures. One prominent observation is that superior metacognitive accuracy can be achieved when one applies a heuristic in which the response-incongruent dimension of information is ignored. This is because such an heuristic takes advantage of the specific unequal-variance structure, which paradoxically cannot be easily exploited if both dimensions are evaluated together. Furthermore, under a variety of internal statistical structures, this simple heuristic predicts dissociations of objective decision and subjective metacognition, which have been empirically observed. Also, it provides a tentative account of some behavioral features of blindsight. Therefore, this surprisingly simple decision heuristic may inspire novel perspectives on metacognition and consciousness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rev0000184

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Initial theoretical explanations proposed that the PEB may result from a bias in the broadcast or readout of propositional confidence estimates, or from a heuristic applied to evidence spaces that are often detection- rather than discrimination-like.

    “Initial theoretical explanations proposed that the PEB may result from a bias in the broadcast or readout of propositional confidence estimates, or from a heuristic applied to evidence spaces that are often detection-rather than discrimination-like (Maniscalco et al. 2021, Miyoshi & Lau 2020).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Miyoshi & Lau 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miyoshi, K., & Lau, H.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2020-10
Volume
127
Issue
5
Pages
655-671
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W3010677826
Cited by
33
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17J01808)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01NS088628)
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, covariance structure, metacognitive sensitivity, confidence ratings, two-alternative forced choice, blindsight, consciousness
MeSH terms
Heuristics, Metacognition, Consciousness, Decision Making, Humans

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