Cited by 809Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Relating Introspective Accuracy to Individual Differences in Brain Structure

Open access
Fleming, Stephen M., Weil, Rimona S., Nagy, Zoltan, Dolan, Raymond J., Rees, Geraint·2010·Science

Abstract

Naval Gazing: Simple perceptual tasks, such as detecting the contrast between light and dark bars in a grating, have been a mainstay of psychophysical research for decades. This kind of task makes it possible to obtain both an objective measure of how accurate subjects are and a subjective measure of how confident they are in their judgments. Fleming et al. (p. 1541 ; see the Perspective by Lau and Maniscalco ) have taken this approach one step further by constructing a measure of how accurate subjects are in their confidence judgments. This capacity for introspection, which can be regarded as one facet of metacognition (thinking about thinking), is shown to vary across individuals and to correlate positively with the gray matter volume of the frontopolar cortex (the frontmost region of the brain) and also with white matter in the tracts of the corpus callosum that connect these regions in the left and right hemispheres.

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 · 10.1126/science.1191883

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Individual differences in perceptual metacognitive sensitivity are linked to variation in the structure and function of human anterior prefrontal cortex.

    “Individual differences in perceptual metacognitive sensitivity have been similarly linked to variation in the structure and function of human anterior prefrontal cortex (Allen et al. 2017, Baird et al. 2013, Fleming et al. 2010, McCurdy et al. 2013).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Fleming et al. 2010

    The results passage (section labeled Abstract; page unavailable) links individual differences in perceptual metacognitive sensitivity to anterior prefrontal gray-matter volume, and the abstract also reports an association with connected white-matter microstructure. The paper discusses a functional role for prefrontal cortex, but its own analysis measured brain structure, not individual variation in prefrontal function. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Metacognitive efficiency shows moderate test-retest reliability, both across different sessions of the same experiment and across different days.

    “Metacognitive efficiency shows moderate test-retest reliability, both across different sessions of the same experiment (Ais et al. 2016, Fleming et al. 2010) and across different days (Wright et al. 2012).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Fleming et al. 2010

    The passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) reports split-half test–retest consistency for metacognitive ability measured by Aroc (r = 0.69). It does not say the halves were different sessions or identify Aroc as a measure of metacognitive efficiency. The across-days claim is attributed to Wright et al., not Fleming et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Frontopolar cortex plays a role in metacognitive efficiency.

    “These findings are intriguing in light of other work emphasizing the role of frontopolar cortex in metacognitive efficiency (Allen et al. 2017, Baird et al. 2013, Fleming et al. 2010, McCurdy et al. 2013, Miyamoto et al. 2018).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Fleming et al. 2010

  • Possible anatomical substrates of metacognition have been investigated for several cognitive domains (exteroceptive perceptual performance, memory) but not for interoception or homeostasis/allostasis.

    “Turning to the neuroanatomy of metacognition, possible anatomical substrates have been investigated for several cognitive domains, in particular (extero)perceptual performance or memory (Shimamura and Squire, 1986; Schnyer et al., 2004; Fleming et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; McCurdy et al., 2013), but not, to our knowledge, for interoception or homeostasis/allostasis.”
  • Confidence can be measured independently of the choice process and is conceptualized as a second-order metacognitive evaluation.

    “In contrast, the field of perceptual decision-making has highlighted the fact that confidence can be measured independently of the choice process itself9,10, where it is conceptualized as reflecting a “second-order” metacognitive evaluation.”

    From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [9]

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: 1

  1. [32]Metcalfe J Dunlosky J Bjork RA Handbook of Metamemory and Memory 2008 27 46 Psychology Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Nagy, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Rees, G.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Corresponding author
  • Fleming, Stephen M.
  • Weil, Rimona S.
Venue
Science
Published
2010-09-17
Volume
329
Issue
5998
Pages
1541-1543
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2089580004
Cited by
809
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 41
FWCI
23.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (078865, 082334)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
self-reflection, introspective accuracy, interindividual variability, anterior prefrontal cortex, gray matter volume, white matter microstructure, perceptual decision making, subjective experience, brain structure
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Corpus Callosum, Decision Making, Humans, Judgment, Male, ROC Curve, Thinking, Visual Perception, 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