CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Abilities and TestingInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

Is there a G factor for metacognition? Correlations in retrospective metacognitive sensitivity across tasks.

Open access
Mazancieux, Audrey, Fleming, Stephen M., Souchay, Céline, Moulin, Chris J. A.·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/xge0000746PMC PMC7397761
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

) were significant, even for pairs of tasks in which first-order performance was not correlated. This suggests that at least some components of metacognitive efficiency in retrospective confidence are domain general. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/xge0000746

Cites

39 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Summary of the four tasks. A, Episodic memory task. B, Semantic memory task. C, Visual perception task—real stimuli included between 25 and 75 dots. D, Working memory/attention task (executive functioning).
Figure 1 Summary of the four tasks. A, Episodic memory task. B, Semantic memory task. C, Visual perception task—real stimuli included between 25 and 75 dots. D, Working memory/attention task (executive functioning).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 A, Raincloud plots (Allen, Poggiali, Whitaker, Marshall, & Kievit, 2019) for d′ for the four tasks. B, Raincloud plots for confidence level for the four tasks.
Figure 2 A, Raincloud plots (Allen, Poggiali, Whitaker, Marshall, & Kievit, 2019) for d′ for the four tasks. B, Raincloud plots for confidence level for the four tasks.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Posterior distributions over μ Mratio (meta-d′/d′ ratio) for the episodic memory, visual perception, semantic memory, and executive functioning tasks.
Figure 3 Posterior distributions over μ Mratio (meta-d′/d′ ratio) for the episodic memory, visual perception, semantic memory, and executive functioning tasks.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 A, Single-subject parameter estimates from the hierarchical model of meta-d′/d′ and Pearson correlations between meta-d′/d′ estimates across the four tasks. B, Posterior distributions over ρ for each entry in the covariance matrix determining the correlations between meta-d′/d′ across the four tasks.
Figure 4 A, Single-subject parameter estimates from the hierarchical model of meta-d′/d′ and Pearson correlations between meta-d′/d′ estimates across the four tasks. B, Posterior distributions over ρ for each entry in the covariance matrix determining the correlations between meta-d′/d′ across the four tasks.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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kruschke J. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  2. Nelson T. O., & Narens L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical frame- work and new findings In Bower G. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125– 173). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 142

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mazancieux, A., Fleming, S. M., Souchay, C., & Moulin, C. J. A.
Affiliations
  • Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition (FR)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Mazancieux, Audrey
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-09
Volume
149
Issue
9
Pages
1788-1799
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/xge0000746
PMC
PMC7397761
OpenAlex
W3011402148
Cited by
131
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University Grenoble Alpes
  • Institut Universitaire de France
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
metacognition, metacognitive sensitivity, metacognitive efficiency, domain generality, general intelligence
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Bayes Theorem, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Retrospective Studies, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Executive Function

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