Optimally Interacting Minds
Open accessAbstract
Two Heads Are Better Than One: When two people peer into the distance and try to figure out if a faint number is a three or an eight, classical signal detection theory states that the joint decision can only be as good as that of the person with higher visual acuity. Bahrami et al. (p. 1081 ; see the Perspective by Ernst ) propose that a discussion not only of what each person perceives but also of the degree of confidence in those assignments can improve the overall sensitivity of the decision. Using a traditional contrast-detection task, they showed that, when the individuals did not differ too much in their powers of visual discrimination, collective decision-making significantly improved sensitivity. The model offered here formalizes debates held since the Enlightenment about whether collective thinking can outperform that of elite individuals.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Even in ideal conditions where all relevant information is available, humans deviate from optimal integration of opinions.
“Even in these ideal conditions, where all relevant information is available, humans deviate from an optimal integration of opinions [50 , 51] .”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [50]
The Main Text says the dyads made Bayes-optimal use of the confidence information they communicated. It also says the model in which participants shared both the signal and its reliability outperformed the dyads, but the authors considered it unlikely that participants shared both and then used them suboptimally. The paper therefore does not establish the claimed deviation despite all relevant information being available. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDecision-making improves when two persons share knowledge.
“Decision-making improves when two persons share knowledge”
From What is consciousness, and could machines have it? (2017) · cites this paper as [69]
The Main Text reports that communication of confidence between two people can improve joint perceptual decisions, but only when the observers have similar sensitivity. It also reports that collaboration can be worse than relying on the better observer when their sensitivities differ markedly. The claim omits that limit and describes the shared information more broadly as knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence enables debate to systematically drift to the correct hypothesis.
“Second, a confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence.”
From Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity (2026) · cites this paper as Bahrami et al., 2010
The Main Text (page unavailable) supports confidence sharing: participants communicated trial-by-trial estimates of their reliability and used one another’s confidence in joint perceptual decisions. It does not establish a debate protocol involving successive updates or systematic drift toward a correct hypothesis; the reported outcome is improved perceptual sensitivity in dyads of similarly sensitive observers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDiversity of initial viewpoints and explicit calibrated confidence communication are two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD.
“Drawing on findings from human deliberation and collective decision-making, we identify two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD: (i) diversity of initial viewpoints and (ii) explicit, calibrated confidence communication.”
From Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity (2026) · cites this paper as Bahrami et al., 2010
The Main Text (page unavailable) supports confidence communication: the weighted confidence-sharing model fit the dyad data, and Experiment 3 found that communicating only choices did not produce the same benefit. It describes individual choices and disagreements, but does not establish diversity of initial viewpoints as a key mechanism. The characterization of what is missing from vanilla MAD is the citing authors’ application, not a finding tested in this paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBy sharing their confidence signals, two persons achieve better performance in collective decision-making than either person alone.
“By sharing their confidence signals, two persons achieve a better performance in collective decision-making than that of either person alone ( 69 ).”
From What is consciousness, and could machines have it? (2017) · cites this paper as [69]
The Main Text reports that communicating confidence improved a dyad’s performance beyond that of its better member. But it limits this benefit to observers with similar sensitivity; when sensitivities differed markedly, the dyad could perform worse than its better member. The citing sentence omits that condition. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Global broadcast of propositional confidence is important for the public sharing of metacognitive representations in group settings.
“Finally, global broadcast of propositional confidence is important for the public sharing of metacognitive representations in group settings: We might say to a colleague, “I believe this is the right thing to do,” thereby influencing the course of the group’s decision (Bahrami et al. 2010, Shea et al. 2014).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Bahrami et al. 2010
The Main Text (page unavailable) reports that communicating subjective confidence between two people was necessary for a collective benefit in a perceptual decision task. It does not establish a global broadcast of propositional confidence or extend the finding to public sharing across group settings and decisions such as a colleague’s course of action. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAggregating informed opinions improves effectiveness, promoting the wisdom of crowds.
“extensive evidence has shown that aggregating informed opinions improves effectiveness [50 , 58] , promoting the wisdom of crowds [59 , 60] .”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [50]
The Main Text reports that combining two observers’ judgments can improve perceptual sensitivity when they have similar sensitivity and communicate confidence. It also says that observers with markedly different sensitivities can perform worse together than the better individual, so the unqualified claim that aggregation improves effectiveness overstates the finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhen subject pairs had similar perceptual sensitivities, joint performance was better than either individual alone.
“A previous study found that when the subject pairs had similar perceptual sensitivities, joint performance was better than either individual alone.”
From Metacognition: computation, biology and function (2012) · cites this paper as [17]
When subject pairs' sensitivities markedly differed, collaboration was detrimental.
“In contrast, when their sensitivities markedly differed, collaboration was detrimental [ 17 ].”
From Metacognition: computation, biology and function (2012) · cites this paper as [17]
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
Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415429a · Cited by 4,844 · see citing works
Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822 · Cited by 2,216 · see citing works
Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning
Körding, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02169 · Cited by 2,004 · see citing works
The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration
Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029 · Cited by 1,936 · see citing works
Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes
Ma, W. J., Beck, J. M., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1790 · Cited by 1,457 · see citing works
Self-citationGroup Performance and Decision Making
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009 · Cited by 1,332 · see citing works
Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?
Hill, G. W. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517 · Cited by 692 · see citing works
Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2004) · doi:10.1093/0199269750.001.0001 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks
Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.
Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.494 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Efficient computation and cue integration with noisy population codes
Denève, S., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/90541 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Self-citationTwenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and Research: Lessons from the Evaluation of a Theory.
Turner, M., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2756 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Signal-detection analysis of group decision making.
Sorkin, R. D., Hays, C. J., & West, R. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.183 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]Nitzan S Paroush J Collective decision making: an economic outlook 1985 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
- [7]Green DM Swets JA Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics 1966 Wiley New York
- [9]Hill GW Psychological Bulletin 1982 91 517
- [11]Laughlin PR Ellis AL Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1986 22 177
- [14]Latane B Williams K Harkins S Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979 37 822
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing
Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 · Cited by 2,573 · see citing works
Toward a second-person neuroscience
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660 · Cited by 1,510 · see citing works
Brain-to-brain coupling: a mechanism for creating and sharing a social world
Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007 · Cited by 1,140 · see citing works
What is consciousness, and could machines have it?
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan8871 · Cited by 855 · see citing works
Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding
Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1202129109 · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Confidence in value-based choice
De Martino, B., Fleming, S. M., Garrett, N., & Dolan, R. J. (2013) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3279 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence
Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2013) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Self-citationPrefrontal Contributions to Metacognition in Perceptual Decision Making
Fleming, S. M., Huijgen, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6489-11.2012 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
The role of metacognition in human social interactions
Frith, C. D. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0123 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Self-citationConfidence as Bayesian probability: From neural origins to behavior
Meyniel, F., Sigman, M., & Mainen, Z. F. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.039 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Metacognition: computation, biology and function
Fleming, S. M., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0021 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Self-citationShared neural markers of decision confidence and error detection
Boldt, A., & Yeung, N. (2015) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0797-14.2015 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
When are two heads better than one and why?
Koriat, A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1216549 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Minimal self-models and the free energy principle.
Limanowski, J., & Blankenburg, F. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00547 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis
Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
The Sense of Confidence during Probabilistic Learning: A Normative Account
Meyniel, F., Schlunegger, D., & Dehaene, S. (2015) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004305 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength
Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0549-2 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Domain-general enhancements of metacognitive ability through adaptive training.
Carpenter, J., Sherman, M. T., Kievit, R. A., Seth, A. K., Lau, H., & Fleming, S. M. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000505 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Smartphones and close relationships: the case for an evolutionary mismatch
Sbarra, D. A., Briskin, J. L., & Slatcher, R. B. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619826535 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports
Adler, W. T., & Ma, W. J. (2018) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006572 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of self-awareness
Lou, H. C., Changeux, J. P., & Rosenstand, A. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.004 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence.
Boldt, A., de Gardelle, V., & Yeung, N. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000404 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading
Boldt, A., & Gilbert, S. J. (2019) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0195-y · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Confidence as a Common Currency between Vision and Audition
de Gardelle, V., Le Corre, F., & Mamassian, P. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147901 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Boldt, A., Schiffer, A.-M., Waszak, F., & Yeung, N. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-40681-9 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Schilbach, L., & Redcay, E. (2025) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-080123-101149 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Consensus Goals in the Field of Visual Metacognition
Rahnev, D., Balsdon, T., Charles, L., de Gardelle, V., Denison, R., Desender, K., Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Fleming, S. M., Jehee, J., et al. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221075615 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Computing Arm Movements with a Monkey Brainet
Ramakrishnan, A., Ifft, P. J., Pais-Vieira, M., Byun, Y. W., Zhuang, K. Z., Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep10767 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Matran-Fernandez, A., & Poli, R. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178498 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Identifying cultural differences in metacognition.
van der Plas, E., Zhang, S., Dong, K., Bang, D., Li, J., Wright, N. D., & Fleming, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0001209 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Common computations for metacognition and meta-metacognition
Zheng, Y., Recht, S., & Rahnev, D. (2023) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niad023 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“…(Fleming et al. 2010, Morales et al. 2018, Shekhar and Rahnev 2018, Zheng et al. 2021) and can guide learning (Guggenmos et al. 2016), cognitive offloading (Gilbert et al. 2020), information seeking (Desender et al. 2018 ), and social interactions (Bahrami et al. 2010, Pescetelli and Yeung 2021).”
BackgroundActive disambiguation guides inferring controllability and cause in social interactions
Spiering, L., Trier, H. A., O’Reilly, J. X., Kolling, N., Wittmann, M. K., Rushworth, M. F. S., & Scholl, J. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67853-8 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
Zhu, X., Zhang, C., Chi, Y., Stafford, T., Collier, N., & Vlachos, A. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1694 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bahrami, Bahador
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2010-08-27
- Volume
- 329
- Issue
- 5995
- Pages
- 1081-1085
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC3371582
- OpenAlex
- W1967003847
- Cited by
- 738
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 16.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Aarhus Universitet
- Wellcome Trust (082334)
- Gatsby Charitable Foundation
- European Commission
- National Research Foundation
- Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
- Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- group decision making, perceptual decision making, group performance, visual sensitivity, individual differences
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bayes Theorem, Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Probability, Psychometrics, Visual Perception, Feedback, Psychological, Uncertainty
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
