Cited by 129Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Behavioral, Modeling, and Electrophysiological Evidence for Supramodality in Human Metacognition

Open access
Faivre, Nathan, Filevich, Elisa, Solovey, Guillermo, Kühn, Simone, Blanke, Olaf·2018·The Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Human metacognition, or the capacity to introspect on one's own mental states, has been mostly characterized through confidence reports in visual tasks. A pressing question is to what extent results from visual studies generalize to other domains. Answering this question allows determining whether metacognition operates through shared, supramodal mechanisms or through idiosyncratic, modality-specific mechanisms. Here, we report three new lines of evidence for decisional and postdecisional mechanisms arguing for the supramodality of metacognition. First, metacognitive efficiency correlated among auditory, tactile, visual, and audiovisual tasks. Second, confidence in an audiovisual task was best modeled using supramodal formats based on integrated representations of auditory and visual signals. Third, confidence in correct responses involved similar electrophysiological markers for visual and audiovisual tasks that are associated with motor preparation preceding the perceptual judgment. We conclude that the supramodality of metacognition relies on supramodal confidence estimates and decisional signals that are shared across sensory modalities. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Metacognitive monitoring is the capacity to access, report, and regulate one's own mental states. In perception, this allows rating our confidence in what we have seen, heard, or touched. Although metacognitive monitoring can operate on different cognitive domains, we ignore whether it involves a single supramodal mechanism common to multiple cognitive domains or modality-specific mechanisms idiosyncratic to each domain. Here, we bring evidence in favor of the supramodality hypothesis by showing that participants with high metacognitive performance in one modality are likely to perform well in other modalities. Based on computational modeling and electrophysiology, we propose that supramodality can be explained by the existence of supramodal confidence estimates and by the influence of decisional cues on confidence estimates.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0322-17.2017

Cites

57 of 57 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 metacognitive efficiency are correlated across distinct task domains, after controlling for correlations in performance.

    “Behaviorally, individual differences in metacognitive efficiency have been shown to be correlated across distinct task domains, after controlling for correlations in performance (Ais et al. 2016, Faivre et al. 2018, Mazancieux et al. 2020, Rouault et al. 2018b).”

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

    Experiment 1 reports correlations in metacognitive efficiency across visual, auditory, and tactile conditions, and says they were not confounded with first-order performance. It defines efficiency by normalizing metacognitive sensitivity by first-order sensitivity, but does not report controlling the cross-domain correlations for correlations in performance. The behavioural-data section also reports a visual–audiovisual correlation without such an adjustment. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Solovey, G., Kühn, S., & Blanke, O.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Board of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (CH)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2017-09-15
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
263-277
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2754330789
Cited by
129
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 3
FWCI
17.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Fondation Bertarelli
  • European Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
metacognition, metacognitive confidence, sensory modalities, audiovisual perception, auditory perception, tactile perception, visual perception, metacognitive efficiency, electrophysiological markers, motor preparation
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Brain, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Perception, 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