Cited by 125Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural dynamics and brain function

The neural system of metacognition accompanying decision-making in the prefrontal cortex

Open access
Qiu, Lirong, Su, Jie, Ni, Yinmei, Bai, Yang, Zhang, Xuesong, Li, Xiaoli, Wan, Xiaohong·2018·PLOS Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Decision-making is usually accompanied by metacognition, through which a decision maker monitors uncertainty regarding a decision and may then consequently revise the decision. These metacognitive processes can occur prior to or in the absence of feedback. However, the neural mechanisms of metacognition remain controversial. One theory proposes an independent neural system for metacognition in the prefrontal cortex (PFC); the other, that metacognitive processes coincide and overlap with the systems used for the decision-making process per se. In this study, we devised a novel "decision-redecision" paradigm to investigate the neural metacognitive processes involved in redecision as compared to the initial decision-making process. The participants underwent a perceptual decision-making task and a rule-based decision-making task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We found that the anterior PFC, including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and lateral frontopolar cortex (lFPC), were more extensively activated after the initial decision. The dACC activity in redecision positively scaled with decision uncertainty and correlated with individual metacognitive uncertainty monitoring abilities-commonly occurring in both tasks-indicating that the dACC was specifically involved in decision uncertainty monitoring. In contrast, the lFPC activity seen in redecision processing was scaled with decision uncertainty reduction and correlated with individual accuracy changes-positively in the rule-based decision-making task and negatively in the perceptual decision-making task. Our results show that the lFPC was specifically involved in metacognitive control of decision adjustment and was subject to different control demands of the tasks. Therefore, our findings support that a separate neural system in the PFC is essentially involved in metacognition and further, that functions of the PFC in metacognition are dissociable.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004037

Cites

68 of 68 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 judgments heighten activity in a network of prefrontal regions, notably dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and lateral frontopolar cortex.

    “Such comparisons have highlighted a network of prefrontal regions, notably dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and lateral frontopolar cortex, in which activity is heightened when metacognitive judgments are required (Fleming et al. 2012, Qiu et al. 2018, Yeon et al. 2020).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Qiu et al. 2018

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. [3]Dunlosky J, Metcalfe J. Metacognition. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qiu, L., Su, J., Ni, Y., Bai, Y., Zhang, X., Li, X., & Wan, X.
Affiliations
Beijing Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wan, Xiaohong
Venue
PLOS Biology
Published
2018-04-23
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
e2004037
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2951856121
Cited by
125
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61273063, 31471068)
  • Recruitment Program of Global Experts
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017EYT33)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
metacognition, decision-making, prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, perceptual decision making, rule-based decision making, metacognitive regulation, neural dissociation
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Psychological Tests, Prefrontal Cortex, 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