Direct injection of noise to the visual cortex decreases accuracy but increases decision confidence
Abstract
The relationship between accuracy and confidence in psychophysical tasks traditionally has been assumed to be mainly positive, i.e., the two typically increase or decrease together. However, recent studies have reported examples of exceptions, where confidence and accuracy dissociate from each other. Explanations for such dissociations often involve dual-channel models, in which a cortical channel contributes to both accuracy and confidence, whereas a subcortical channel only contributes to accuracy. Here, we show that a single-channel model derived from signal detection theory (SDT) can also account for such dissociations. We applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the occipital cortex to disrupt the internal representation of a visual stimulus. The results showed that consistent with previous research, occipital TMS decreased accuracy. However, counterintuitively, it also led to an increase in confidence ratings. The data were predicted well by a single-channel SDT model, which posits that occipital TMS increased the variance of the internal stimulus distributions. A formal model comparison analysis that used information theoretic methods confirmed that this model was preferred over single-channel models, in which occipital TMS changed the signal strength or dual-channel models, which assume two different processing routes. Thus our results show that dissociations between accuracy and confidence can, at least in some cases, be accounted for by a single-channel mo…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.
“In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.”
From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [59]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Rahnev, D. A., Maniscalco, B., Luber, B., Lau, H., & Lisanby, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Rahnev, Dobromir A.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2012-03-15
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1556-1563
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W1992673242
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- visual cortex, transcranial magnetic stimulation, signal detection theory, single-channel model, dual-channel model, decision confidence, internal representations, noise injection, model comparison, information theory, visual perception
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, Signal Detection, Psychological, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
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