Comparing signal detection models of perceptual decision confidence
Open accessAbstract
Introduction We investigated the mechanisms underlying reports of perceptual confidence. In particular, is all the information used for perceptual decisions available to confidence reporting? Some models of perception suggest that there are multiple channels of information, and subjective reports such as confidence ratings can only tap into one of the channels (e.g. cortical, but not subcortical channels). Is this intuitive view correct? We capitalize on an original psychophysical finding (Lau & Passingham 2006 PNAS) that subjective reports of perceptual confidence and perceptual performance (d') can dissociate, and apply formal model comparison techniques to identify the mechanism underlying confidence reporting. Methods and Results We considered several signal detection theory models, including: A simple SDT model where confidence is determined by setting criteria on the primary decision axis; a late noise model where the noisy perceptual signal becomes even noisier when making confidence judgments; and a two-channel model where only one channel contributes to confidence judgments. We compared models by evaluating the likelihood of each model, given the metacontrast masking data, using the Akaike information criterion. All models could account for perceptual performance, but the late noise model provided the best fit to the observed performance-confidence dissociation. Discussion Our results suggest that simple SDT models may not adequately characterize the relationship between perceptual decisions and confidence, because they do not provide a process that allows for the kind of performance-confidence dissociation observed in the metacontrast masking paradigm. However, this extra process need not be an extra information processing channel. Our best-fitting model was a hierarchical, single-channel model where noisy perceptual signals accrue further noise when used for rating confidence. This suggests that confidence decisions may be made by mechanisms downstream from perceptual decision mechanisms.
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?
If reported confidence is a noisy facsimile of the confidence inherent in a decision process, the relationship between confidence and behavior will weaken, and metacognitive accuracy will decrease.
“Intuitively, if reported confidence is a noisy facsimile of the confidence inherent in a decision process, the relationship between confidence and behavior will weaken, and metacognitive accuracy will decrease26.”
From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [26]
rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making.
“This pattern of findings suggests that rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making, supporting the notion of segregated neural process governing metacognitive access22,24,26.”
From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [26]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness
Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.009 · Cited by 869 · see citing works
Self-citationManiscalco, B., & Lau, H. (2012) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021 · Cited by 883 · see citing works
“For instance, on some models, type 2 decisions are based upon further processing of the same information used to make type 1 decisions (Lau & Rosenthal, 2011; Maniscalco & Lau, 2010; Pleskac & Busemeyer, 2010).”
MethodSelf-citationThe neural basis of metacognitive ability
Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0417 · Cited by 747 · 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
Blindsight is qualitatively degraded conscious vision.
Phillips, I. B. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000254 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
The radical plasticity thesis: How the brain learns to be conscious.
Cleeremans, A. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00086 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
“This issue is currently being debated, with some authors defending a dual-route model (Del Cul et al., 2009; Dehaene and Charles, 2010) and others (Lau, 2010; Maniscalco and Lau, 2010) defending hierarchical models.”
BackgroundResultDoes response interference depend on the subjective visibility of flanker distractors?
Maniscalco, B., Bang, J. W., Iravani, L., Camps-Febrer, F., & Lau, H. C. (2012) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0291-2 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
“This does not mean that the dissociation effect is in itself unreliable, because the effect has been replicated in the fMRI scanner (Lau & Passingham, 2006) as well as in other experiments (Maniscalco & Lau, 2010).”
ResultSelf-citationWho’s afraid of response bias?
Peters, M., Ro, T., & Lau, H.-K. C. (2016) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niw001 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“…measure was subsequently addressed empirically: using a biasfree signal detection theoretic (SDT) measure of sensitivity (d’) in the objective task, Maniscalco and colleagues (Maniscalco and Lau, 2010; Maniscalco et al., 2016) replicated Lau and Passingham’s (2006) relative blindsight finding.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationDistinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting, but not discriminating visual stimuli
Mazor, M., Friston, K. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.53900 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Sinanaj, I., Cojan, Y., & Vuilleumier, P. O. (2015) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.012 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision MakingPreprint
Rahnev, D., & Denison, R. N. (2016) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/060194 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Sánchez-Fuenzalida, N., van Gaal, S., Fleming, S. M., Haaf, J. M., & Fahrenfort, J. J. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xa4fj · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Metacognition and Confidence in Value-Based Choice
Fleming, S. M., & Martino, B. D. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45190-4_8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Sánchez-Fuenzalida, N., van Gaal, S., Fleming, S. M., Haaf, J. M., & Fahrenfort, J. J. (2025) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00257-y · Cited by 5 · see citing works
The act of detecting a stimulus contaminates measures of conscious experience with decision biases
Sánchez-Fuenzalida, N., Jungerius, C., Fleming, S. M., van Gaal, S., & Fahrenfort, J. J. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72567-6
- Authors
- Maniscalco, B., & Lau, H.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2010-08-03
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 213-213
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979623589
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Vision (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- perceptual confidence, signal detection theory, metacontrast masking, confidence ratings, perceptual decision making, two-channel model, hierarchical models, model comparison, Akaike information criterion
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