Cited by 86Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Confidence Predictions Affect Performance Confidence and Neural Preparation in Perceptual Decision Making

Open access
Boldt, Annika, Schiffer, Anne-Marike, Waszak, Florian, Yeung, Nick·2019·Scientific Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Decisions are usually accompanied by a feeling of being wrong or right – a subjective confidence estimate. But what information is this confidence estimate based on, and what is confidence used for? To answer these questions, research has largely focused on confidence regarding current or past decisions, for example identifying how characteristics of the stimulus affect confidence, how confidence can be used as an internally generated feedback signal, and how communicating confidence can affect group decisions. Here, we report two studies which implemented a novel metacognitive measure: predictions of confidence for future perceptual decisions. Using computational modeling of behaviour and EEG, we established that experience-based confidence predictions are one source of information that affects how confident we are in future decision-making, and that learned confidence-expectations affect neural preparation for future decisions. Results from both studies show that participants develop precise confidence predictions informed by past confidence experience. Notably, our results also show that confidence predictions affect performance confidence rated after a decision is made; this finding supports the proposal that confidence judgments are based on multiple sources of information, including expectations. We found strong support for this link in neural correlates of stimulus preparation and processing. EEG measures of preparatory neural activity (contingent negative variation; CNV) and evidence accumulation (centro-parietal positivity; CPP) show that predicted confidence affects neural preparation for stimulus processing, supporting the proposal that one purpose of confidence judgments may be to learn about performance for future encounters and prepare accordingly.

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/s41598-019-40681-9

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Global confidence can be considered a higher-order prior on estimates of local propositional confidence, naturally modeled as a probability distribution over expected success.

    “One fruitful approach considers global confidence as a higher-order prior on estimates of (local) propositional confidence (Boldt et al. 2019, Marcke et al. 2022), which can be naturally modeled as a probability distribution over expected success (Rouault et al. 2019).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Boldt et al. 2019

    The Introduction (page unavailable) proposes that predicted confidence acts as a prior for confidence reported after a perceptual decision, and the Discussion describes experience-based confidence as a prior belief. But the paper’s own results concern stimulus-category-specific predictions, not a general global-confidence prior; it also leaves mathematical formalization for future work. The probability-distribution clause is attributed to Rouault et al., not Boldt et al., and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Boldt, A., Schiffer, A.-M., Waszak, F., & Yeung, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Boldt, Annika
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-03-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
4031-4031
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2746267321
Cited by
86
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • RCUK | Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J500112/1)
  • RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I019847/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
confidence estimation, metacognition, perceptual decision making, performance confidence, contingent negative variation, evidence accumulation, EEG
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Decision Making, Electroencephalography, Emotions, 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