Cited by 265Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Automatic integration of confidence in the brain valuation signal

Lebreton, Maël, Abitbol, Raphaëlle, Daunizeau, Jean, Pessiglione, Mathias·2015·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

A key process in decision-making is estimating the value of possible outcomes. Growing evidence suggests that different types of values are automatically encoded in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). Here we extend this idea by suggesting that any overt judgment is accompanied by a second-order valuation (a confidence estimate), which is also automatically incorporated in VMPFC activity. In accordance with the predictions of our normative model of rating tasks, two behavioral experiments showed that confidence levels were quadratically related to first-order judgments (age, value or probability ratings). The analysis of three functional magnetic resonance imaging data sets using similar rating tasks confirmed that the quadratic extension of first-order ratings (our proxy for confidence) was encoded in VMPFC activity, even if no confidence judgment was required of the participants. Such an automatic aggregation of value and confidence in a same brain region might provide insight into many distortions of judgment and choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.4064

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • It is hard to define notions of accuracy for subjective decisions, such as value-based choices or aesthetic preferences, and yet we can still evaluate confidence in such decisions.

    “Theoretically, it is also hard to define notions of accuracy for subjective decisions, such as value-based choices or aesthetic preferences-and yet we can still evaluate confidence in such decisions (De Martino et al. 2013, Lebreton et al. 2015).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Lebreton et al. 2015

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 38 · Cited by 265

Authors
Lebreton, M., Abitbol, R., Daunizeau, J., & Pessiglione, M.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Pessiglione, Mathias
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2015-07-20
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
1159-1167
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2220282344
Cited by
265
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 6
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
confidence estimation, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, judgment accuracy, value encoding, decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Psychological, Prefrontal Cortex, 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