CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Dynamic influences on static measures of metacognition

Open access
Desender, Kobe, Vermeylen, Luc, Verguts, Tom·2022·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-022-31727-0PMC PMC9301893

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans differ in their capability to judge choice accuracy via confidence judgments. Popular signal detection theoretic measures of metacognition, such as M-ratio, do not consider the dynamics of decision making. This can be problematic if response caution is shifted to alter the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Such shifts could induce unaccounted-for sources of variation in the assessment of metacognition. Instead, evidence accumulation frameworks consider decision making, including the computation of confidence, as a dynamic process unfolding over time. Using simulations, we show a relation between response caution and M-ratio. We then show the same pattern in human participants explicitly instructed to focus on speed or accuracy. Finally, this association between M-ratio and response caution is also present across four datasets without any reference towards speed. In contrast, when data are analyzed with a dynamic measure of metacognition, v-ratio, there is no effect of speed-accuracy tradeoff.

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/s41467-022-31727-0

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Factors only indirectly related to metacognitive capacity may contribute to findings of domain-generality, such as how confidence scales are used or the adoption of a particular threshold for postdecisional evidence accumulation.

    “In addition, there are concerns that factors only indirectly related to metacognitive capacity may contribute to findings of domain-generality-such as how confidence scales are used, or the adoption of a particular threshold for postdecisional evidence accumulation (Desender et al. 2022, Xue et al. 2021).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Desender et al. 2022

    The Discussion section, “Caution is warranted with static measures of metacognition” (page unavailable), says that apparent cross-domain correlations in metacognitive accuracy might reflect domain-general response caution rather than a domain-general metacognitive monitor. That supports the general concern, but the cited passage does not identify confidence-scale use or a particular threshold for postdecisional evidence accumulation as explanations for findings of domain-generality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Constraints on postdecisional evidence accumulation may affect the extent to which confidence estimates faithfully track performance.

    “In turn, constraints on postdecisional evidence accumulation may affect the extent to which confidence estimates faithfully track performance (Desender et al. 2022, Pleskac & Busemeyer 2010).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Desender et al. 2022

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

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [1]Sanders JI Hangya B Kepecs A Signatures of a Statistical Computation in the Human Sense of Confidence Neuron 2016 90 499 506 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.025 27151640 PMC5350614 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Fleming SM Weil RS Nagy Z Dolan RJ Rees G Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure Science 2010 329 1541 1543 10.1126/science.1191883 20847276 PMC3173849 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Baird B Mrazek MD Phillips DT Schooler JW Domain-Specific Enhancement of Metacognitive Ability Following Meditation Training J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2014 143 1972 1979 10.1037/a0036882 24820248 · DOI
  4. [4]Rollwage M Dolan J Fleming SM Metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical political beliefs Curr. Biol. 2018 344 4014 4021 10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053 PMC6303190 30562522 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Rouault M Seow T Gillan CM Fleming SM Psychiatric Symptom Dimensions Are Associated With Dissociable Shifts in Metacognition but Not Task Performance Biol. Psychiatry. 2018 84 443 451 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.017 29458997 PMC6117452 · DOI
  6. [6]Locke SM Mamassian P Landy MS Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study Cognition 2020 205 104396 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396 32771212 PMC7669557 · DOI
  7. [7]Arbuzova, P. et al. Measuring Metacognition of Direct and Indirect Parameters of Voluntary Movement Polina. bioxRxiv (2020). 33900097
  8. [8]Yallak E Balcı F Metric error monitoring: Another generalized mechanism for magnitude representations? Cognition 2021 210 104532 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104532 33571813 · DOI
  9. [9]De Martino B Fleming SM Garrett N Dolan RJ Confidence in value-based choice Nat. Neurosci. 2013 16 105 110 10.1038/nn.3279 23222911 PMC3786394 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [10]Bang D Confidence matching in group decision-making Nat. Hum. Behav. 2017 1 1 7 10.1038/s41562-017-0117 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [13]Sandberg K Timmermans B Overgaard M Cleeremans A Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other? Conscious. Cogn. 2010 19 1069 1078 10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013 20133167 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [14]Fleming SM HMeta-d: hierarchical Bayesian estimation of metacognitive efficiency from confidence ratings Neurosci. Conscious 2017 3 1 14 PMC5858026 29877507
  13. [15]Maniscalco B Lau H A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings Conscious. Cogn. 2012 21 422 430 10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021 22071269 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [20]Fleming SM Ryu J Golfinos JG Blackmon KE Domain-specific impairment in metacognitive accuracy following anterior prefrontal lesions Brain 2014 137 2811 2822 10.1093/brain/awu221 25100039 PMC4163038 · DOI
  15. [21]Filevich E Dresler M Brick XTR Ku S Metacognitive Mechanisms Underlying Lucid Dreaming J. Neurosci. 2015 35 1082 1088 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3342-14.2015 25609624 PMC6605529 · DOI
  16. [22]Rahnev DA Maniscalco B Luber B Lau HC Lisanby SH Direct injection of noise to the visual cortex decreases accuracy but increases decision confidence J. Neurophysiol. 2012 107 1556 1563 10.1152/jn.00985.2011 22170965 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [23]Folke T Ouzia J Bright P De Martino B Filippi R A bilingual disadvantage in metacognitive processing Cognition. 2016 150 119 132 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.008 26896725 · DOI
  18. [24]Forstmann BU Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 2008 105 17538 17542 10.1073/pnas.0805903105 18981414 PMC2582260 · DOI
  19. [25]Bogacz R Wagenmakers E-J Forstmann BU Nieuwenhuis S The neural basis of the speed-accuracy tradeoff Trends Neurosci. 2010 33 10 16 10.1016/j.tins.2009.09.002 19819033 · DOI
  20. [28]Yu S Pleskac TJ Zeigenfuse MD Dynamics of Postdecisional Processing of Confidence J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2015 144 489 510 10.1037/xge0000062 25844627 · DOI
  21. [30]Ratcliff R McKoon G The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks Neural Comput. 2008 20 873 922 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420 18085991 PMC2474742 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [31]Forstmann BU Wagenmakers E-J Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016 67 641 666 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645 26393872 PMC5112760 · DOI
  23. [32]Moran R Teodorescu AR Usher M Post choice information integration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account Cogn. Psychol. 2015 78 99 147 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.002 25868113 · DOI
  24. [33]Desender K Donner TH Verguts T Dynamic expressions of confidence within an evidence accumulation framework Cognition 2021 207 104522 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104522 33256974 · DOI
  25. [35]Rafiei F Rahnev D Qualitative speed-accuracy tradeoff effects that cannot be explained by the diffusion model under the selective influence assumption Sci. Rep. 2021 11 1 19 10.1038/s41598-020-79765-2 33420181 PMC7794484 · DOI
  26. [36]Zhang J Rowe JB Dissociable mechanisms of speed-accuracy tradeoff during visual perceptual learning are revealed by a hierarchical drift-diffusion model Front. Neurosci. 2014 8 1 13 10.3389/fnins.2014.00069 24782701 PMC3988401 · DOI
  27. [38]Bor D Schwartzman DJ Barrett AB Seth AK Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal or parietal cortex does not impair metacognitive visual awareness PLoS One. 2016 1 165 175 PMC5305100 28192502
  28. [39]Rounis E Maniscalco B Rothwell JJC Passingham RRE Lau HH Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness Cogn. Neurosci. 2010 1 165 175 10.1080/17588921003632529 24168333 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [40]Baird, B., Cieslak, M., Smallwood, J., Grafton, S. T. & Schooler, J. W. Regional White Matter Variation Associated with Domain-specific Metacognitive Accuracy. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1–10 10.1162/jocn (2014). 25313660 · DOI
  30. [41]Van Maanen L Neural Correlates of Trial-to-Trial Fluctuations in Response Caution J. Neurosci. 2011 31 17488 17495 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2924-11.2011 22131410 PMC6623798 · DOI
  31. [42]Evans NJ Rae B Bushmakin M Rubin M Brown SD Need for closure is associated with urgency in perceptual decision-making Mem. Cogn. 2017 45 1193 1205 10.3758/s13421-017-0718-z 28585159 · DOI
  32. [44]Fleming SM Daw ND Self-evaluation of decision performance: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation Psychol. Rev. 2016 124 1 59 PMC5178868 28004960
  33. [45]Pasquali A Timmermans B Cleeremans A Know thyself: metacognitive networks and measures of consciousness Cognition 2010 117 182 190 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.010 20825936 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [47]Resulaj A Kiani R Wolpert DM Shadlen MN Changes of mind in decision-making Nature 2009 461 263 266 10.1038/nature08275 19693010 PMC2875179 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [48]Vlassova A Pearson J Look Before You Leap: Sensory Memory Improves Decision Making Psychol. Sci. 2013 24 1635 1643 10.1177/0956797612474321 23818654 · DOI
  36. [49]Minson JA Umphres C Confidence in Context: Perceived Accuracy of Quantitative Estimates Decreases With Repeated Trials Psychol. Sci. 2020 31 927 943 10.1177/0956797620921517 32631138 · DOI
  37. [50]Nelson TO Dunlosky J When People’s Judgments of Learning are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The ‘Delayed-JOL effect’ Psychol. Sci. 1991 2 267 270 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147.x · DOI · Paper page
  38. [52]Zylberberg A Fetsch CR Shadlen MN The influence of evidence volatility on choice, reaction time and confidence in a perceptual decision Elife 2016 5 1 31 10.7554/eLife.17688 PMC5083065 27787198 · DOI
  39. [53]Drugowitsch J Moreno-Bote R Churchland AK Shadlen MN Pouget A The Cost of Accumulating Evidence in Perceptual Decision Making J. Neurosci. 2012 32 3612 3628 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4010-11.2012 22423085 PMC3329788 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [54]Moreno-Bote R Decision confidence and uncertainty in diffusion models with partially correlated neuronal integrators Neural Comput. 2010 22 1786 1811 10.1162/neco.2010.12-08-930 20141474 · DOI
  41. [55]Moreira CM Rollwage M Kaduk K Wilke M Kagan I Post-decision wagering after perceptual judgments reveals bi-directional certainty readouts Cognition 2018 176 40 52 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.026 29544114 · DOI
  42. [57]Mullen KM Ardia D Gil DL Windover D Cline J DEoptim: An R package for global optimization by differential evolution J. Stat. Softw. 2011 40 1 26 10.18637/jss.v040.i06 · DOI
  43. [58]de Leeuw JR jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser Behav. Res. Methods. 2015 47 1 12 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y 24683129 · DOI
  44. [59]Desender K Boldt A Verguts T Donner TH Confidence predicts speed-accuracy tradeoff for subsequent decisions Elife 2019 e43499 25 PMC6711665 31429827
  45. [60]Drescher, L. H., Van den Bussche, E. & Desender, K. Absence without leave or leave without absence: Examining the interrelations among mind wandering, metacognition, and cognitive control. PLoS One.13, e0191639 (2018). PMC5807058 29425205
  46. [65]Desender, K., Vermeylen, L. & Verguts, T. Dynamic influences on static measures of metacognition. Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.6656305 (2022). PMC9301893 35864100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Desender, K., Vermeylen, L., & Verguts, T.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Desender, Kobe
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-07-21
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
4208-4208
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-022-31727-0
PMC
PMC9301893
OpenAlex
W4286496572
Cited by
62
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (12T9717N)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
metacognition, confidence judgments, response caution, speed-accuracy trade-off, evidence accumulation, dynamic decision making, signal detection theory, choice accuracy
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Decision Making, Humans, Judgment

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