Cited by 157Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Multivoxel neurofeedback selectively modulates confidence without changing perceptual performance

Open access
Cortese, Aurelio, Amano, Kaoru, Koizumi, Ai, Kawato, Mitsuo, Lau, Hakwan·2016·Nature Communications

Abstract

A central controversy in metacognition studies concerns whether subjective confidence directly reflects the reliability of perceptual or cognitive processes, as suggested by normative models based on the assumption that neural computations are generally optimal. This view enjoys popularity in the computational and animal literatures, but it has also been suggested that confidence may depend on a late-stage estimation dissociable from perceptual processes. Yet, at least in humans, experimental tools have lacked the power to resolve these issues convincingly. Here, we overcome this difficulty by using the recently developed method of decoded neurofeedback (DecNef) to systematically manipulate multivoxel correlates of confidence in a frontoparietal network. Here we report that bi-directional changes in confidence do not affect perceptual accuracy. Further psychophysical analyses rule out accounts based on simple shifts in reporting strategy. Our results provide clear neuroscientific evidence for the systematic dissociation between confidence and perceptual performance, and thereby challenge current theoretical thinking.

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 · 10.1038/ncomms13669

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Metacognitive efficiency may be modulated in response to meditation, drugs, neurofeedback, brain stimulation, and training.

    “Previous work has suggested that metacognitive efficiency may be modulated in response to meditation (Baird et al. 2014), drugs (Hauser et al. 2017), neurofeedback (Cortese et al. 2016), brain stimulation (Shekhar & Rahnev 2018), and training (Carpenter et al. 2019).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Cortese et al. 2016

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
Cortese, A., Amano, K., Koizumi, A., Kawato, M., & Lau, H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Center for Information and Neural Networks (JP)
  • Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (JP)
Corresponding author
  • Kawato, Mitsuo
  • Lau, Hakwan
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2016-12-15
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
13669-13669
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2567525349
Cited by
157
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17
FWCI
11.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation (21569)
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16H05862)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (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, confidence, perceptual accuracy, normative model, neurofeedback, frontoparietal network, reporting strategies, perceptual reliability
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Parietal Lobe, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Neurofeedback, Functional Neuroimaging

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