CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and InfluencesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forming global estimates of self-performance from local confidence

Open access
Rouault, Marion, Dayan, Peter, Fleming, Stephen M.·2019·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-09075-3PMC PMC6408496
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Metacognition, the ability to internally evaluate our own cognitive performance, is particularly useful since many real-life decisions lack immediate feedback. While most previous studies have focused on the construction of confidence at the level of single decisions, little is known about the formation of “global” self-performance estimates (SPEs) aggregated from multiple decisions. Here, we compare the formation of SPEs in the presence and absence of feedback, testing a hypothesis that local decision confidence supports the formation of SPEs when feedback is unavailable. We reveal that humans pervasively underestimate their performance in the absence of feedback, compared to a condition with full feedback, despite objective performance being unaffected. We find that fluctuations in confidence contribute to global SPEs over and above objective accuracy and reaction times. Our findings create a bridge between a computation of local confidence and global SPEs, and support a functional role for confidence in higher-order behavioral control.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-019-09075-3

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Experimental design, Experiment 1. a Learning blocks were composed of randomly alternating trials from two “tasks”. Each task was either easy or difficult and provided feedback or no feedback (b), resulting in six possible task pairings (a). At the end of each learning block, subjects were asked to choose which task should be used to calculate a monetary bonus based on their performance at the chosen task. They were also asked to rate their overall ability at each task on a continuous rating scale. A new block ensued with two new color cues indicating two new tasks. c Trial structure. Each trial consisted of a perceptual judgment as to which of two boxes contained a higher number of dots. Each judgment was either easy or difficult according to the dot difference between the left and right boxes. Following their response, subjects either received veridical feedback (correct, incorrect) about their perceptual judgment or no feedback
Fig. 1 Experimental design, Experiment 1. a Learning blocks were composed of randomly alternating trials from two “tasks”. Each task was either easy or difficult and provided feedback or no feedback (b), resulting in six possible task pairings (a). At the end of each learning block, subjects were asked to choose which task should be used to calculate a monetary bonus based on their performance at the chosen task. They were also asked to rate their overall ability at each task on a continuous rating scale. A new block ensued with two new color cues indicating two new tasks. c Trial structure. Each trial consisted of a perceptual judgment as to which of two boxes contained a higher number of dots. Each judgment was either easy or difficult according to the dot difference between the left and right boxes. Following their response, subjects either received veridical feedback (correct, incorrect) about their perceptual judgment or no feedbackCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Behavioral dissociation between objective performance and SPEs in Experiment 1 (N = 29). a Performance (mean percent correct) was better for easy than difficult tasks, but was not different in tasks with and without feedback. Global self-performance estimates (SPEs) as measured directly by task choice (b) or indirectly via task ratings (c) were higher in the presence than in the absence of feedback, despite objective performance being unchanged. Error bars represent S.E.M. across subjects. Black dashes are individual data points (there are fewer task choice data points due to the limited number of blocks per subject)
Fig. 2 Behavioral dissociation between objective performance and SPEs in Experiment 1 (N = 29). a Performance (mean percent correct) was better for easy than difficult tasks, but was not different in tasks with and without feedback. Global self-performance estimates (SPEs) as measured directly by task choice (b) or indirectly via task ratings (c) were higher in the presence than in the absence of feedback, despite objective performance being unchanged. Error bars represent S.E.M. across subjects. Black dashes are individual data points (there are fewer task choice data points due to the limited number of blocks per subject)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Effects of task difficulty and feedback on global SPEs in Experiment 1 (N = 29). a, b Task choice frequency (a) and task ability ratings (b) were visualized for the six task pairings. a Task choice frequencies could only take on the values 0, 0.5, or 1 due to the limited repetitions of pairing types per subject; pie charts display the fractions of subjects for whom these values were 0, 0.5 or 1 (for the right-hand bar of each plot). b Black dashes are individual data points. c Chosen tasks (Ch.) were rated more highly than unchosen tasks (Unch.), indicating consistency across our two measures of SPEs. ***p < 0.000001, paired t test. Error bars represent S.E.M. across subjects
Fig. 3 Effects of task difficulty and feedback on global SPEs in Experiment 1 (N = 29). a, b Task choice frequency (a) and task ability ratings (b) were visualized for the six task pairings. a Task choice frequencies could only take on the values 0, 0.5, or 1 due to the limited repetitions of pairing types per subject; pie charts display the fractions of subjects for whom these values were 0, 0.5 or 1 (for the right-hand bar of each plot). b Black dashes are individual data points. c Chosen tasks (Ch.) were rated more highly than unchosen tasks (Unch.), indicating consistency across our two measures of SPEs. ***p < 0.000001, paired t test. Error bars represent S.E.M. across subjectsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Effects of performance and learning duration on global SPEs in Experiment 2 (N = 29). a Experimental design. Block duration varied from 2 to 10 trials per task. b Task choice frequency in the six types of learning blocks. The central circle of each subplot represents the average task choice frequency over all blocks [“A”]. The left and right circles display the same data split into blocks with smaller [“S”] and larger [“L”’] difference in objective performance between both tasks, indicating that fluctuations in local performance influenced SPEs over and above objective difficulty. ~p = 0.076, ***p < 0.0005 indicate the significance of the regression coefficient regarding the effect of the difference in task performance on task choice. c Task choice frequency as a function of block duration for the six task pairings. **p < 0.01 (resp. NS) denotes whether block duration had a significant (resp. not significant) influence on task choice (statistical significance of the logistic regression coefficient, see Methods). Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. See also Supplementary Fig. 2
Fig. 4 Effects of performance and learning duration on global SPEs in Experiment 2 (N = 29). a Experimental design. Block duration varied from 2 to 10 trials per task. b Task choice frequency in the six types of learning blocks. The central circle of each subplot represents the average task choice frequency over all blocks [“A”]. The left and right circles display the same data split into blocks with smaller [“S”] and larger [“L”’] difference in objective performance between both tasks, indicating that fluctuations in local performance influenced SPEs over and above objective difficulty. ~p = 0.076, ***p < 0.0005 indicate the significance of the regression coefficient regarding the effect of the difference in task performance on task choice. c Task choice frequency as a function of block duration for the six task pairings. **p < 0.01 (resp. NS) denotes whether block duration had a significant (resp. not significant) influence on task choice (statistical significance of the logistic regression coefficient, see Methods). Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. See also Supplementary Fig. 2CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Relating local confidence to global SPEs in Experiment 3 (N = 46). a Subjects rated their confidence higher when they were correct than incorrect, and this difference was greater when the task was easier, indicating that local confidence ratings were sensitive to changes in objective performance. Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. b Logistic regression indicating that the difference in confidence level between tasks (confDiff) explained subjects’ task choices over and above a difference in accuracy (accDiff) and RTs (rtDiff). Error bars indicate S.E. over regression coefficients. ***p < 0.0001 indicates statistical significance of regression coefficient. c Fluctuations in local confidence are predictive of task choices made at the end of blocks. When the difference in mean trial-by-trial confidence between both tasks on the block was larger (“L”) (respectively smaller, “S”), the difference in task choice was larger (resp. smaller). Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. d Between-subjects scatterplot revealing that subjects with higher metacognitive efficiency were better at selecting the easiest task in end-of-block task choices. Purple dots are subjects’ data, dotted lines are 95% CI. Note that task choice data are clustered in discrete levels due to a limited number of blocks per subject. See also Supplementary Fig. 3 and 5
Fig. 5 Relating local confidence to global SPEs in Experiment 3 (N = 46). a Subjects rated their confidence higher when they were correct than incorrect, and this difference was greater when the task was easier, indicating that local confidence ratings were sensitive to changes in objective performance. Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. b Logistic regression indicating that the difference in confidence level between tasks (confDiff) explained subjects’ task choices over and above a difference in accuracy (accDiff) and RTs (rtDiff). Error bars indicate S.E. over regression coefficients. ***p < 0.0001 indicates statistical significance of regression coefficient. c Fluctuations in local confidence are predictive of task choices made at the end of blocks. When the difference in mean trial-by-trial confidence between both tasks on the block was larger (“L”) (respectively smaller, “S”), the difference in task choice was larger (resp. smaller). Error bars indicate S.E.M. across subjects. d Between-subjects scatterplot revealing that subjects with higher metacognitive efficiency were better at selecting the easiest task in end-of-block task choices. Purple dots are subjects’ data, dotted lines are 95% CI. Note that task choice data are clustered in discrete levels due to a limited number of blocks per subject. See also Supplementary Fig. 3 and 5CC 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

Show all 60 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rouault, M., Dayan, P., & Fleming, S. M.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Rouault, Marion
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-03-08
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
1141-1141
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-019-09075-3
PMC
PMC6408496
OpenAlex
W2921883422
Cited by
134
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z, Z/17/Z, 203147, 206648/Z/17/Z, 206648, 203147/Z/16/)
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0017)
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (203147/Z/16/Z, 206648/Z/17/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
metacognition, decision confidence, feedback, reaction time, behavioral control
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Self Concept, Feedback, Psychological

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