Cited by 56Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsFree Will and Agency

Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making

Open access
Wokke, Martijn E., Achoui, Dalila, Cleeremans, Axel·2020·Scientific Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Metacognitive abilities allow us to adjust ongoing behavior and modify future decisions in the absence of external feedback. Although metacognition is critical in many daily life settings, it remains unclear what information is actually being monitored and what kind of information is being used for metacognitive decisions. In the present study, we investigated whether response information connected to perceptual events contribute to metacognitive decision-making. Therefore, we recorded EEG signals during a perceptual color discrimination task while participants were asked to provide an estimate about the quality of their decision on each trial. Critically, the moment participants provided their confidence judgments varied across conditions, thereby changing the amount of action information (e.g., response competition or response fluency) available for metacognitive decisions. Results from three experiments demonstrate that metacognitive performance improved when first-order action information was available at the moment metacognitive decisions about the perceptual task had to be provided. This behavioral effect was accompanied by enhanced functional connectivity (beta phase synchrony) between motor areas and prefrontal regions, exclusively observed during metacognitive decision-making. Our findings demonstrate that action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making, thereby painting a picture of metacognition as a process that integrates sensory evidence and information about our interactions with the world.

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/s41598-020-60382-y

Cites

111 of 111 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 sensitivity is often better when confidence judgments are provided after, compared to before, an explicit decision has been made.

    “Telltale signs of this effect have been confirmed empirically: Metacognitive sensitivity is often better when confidence judgments are provided after, compared to before, an explicit decision has been made (Pereira et al. 2020, Siedlecka et al. 2016, Wokke et al. 2020)”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Wokke et al. 2020

    The Results (Behavior; General results, page unavailable) show higher metacognitive efficiency when confidence judgments followed a response rather than preceded it. But the paper distinguishes efficiency from metacognitive sensitivity (meta-da) and reports no significant difference in sensitivity between conditions in either experiment. Thus the direction of the claim is supported for efficiency, not for the measure it names. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

1 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [67]Fleming SM Action-Specific Disruption of Perceptual Confidence Psychol. Sci. 2014 26 89 98 10.1177/0956797614557697 25425059 PMC4361353 · DOI
  2. [95]Schuck, N. W., Wilson, R. & Niv, Y. In Goal-Directed Decision Making 259–278 (Elsevier Inc., 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wokke, M. E., Achoui, D., & Cleeremans, A.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Wokke, Martijn E.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2020-02-27
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
3632-3632
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009575995
Cited by
56
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (DLV-704361, RADICAL)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
metacognition, confidence judgments, response competition, response fluency, color discrimination, functional connectivity, motor areas, prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Adult, Decision Making, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, 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