Cited by 154Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Distinguishing the Roles of Dorsolateral and Anterior PFC in Visual Metacognition

Open access
Shekhar, Medha, Rahnev, Dobromir·2018·The Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Visual metacognition depends on regions within the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Two areas in particular have been implicated repeatedly: the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and the anterior PFC (aPFC). However, it is still unclear what the function of each of these areas is and how they differ from each other. To establish the specific roles of DLPFC and aPFC in metacognition, we used online transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to interfere causally with their functioning during confidence generation. Human subjects from both sexes performed a perceptual decision making and provided confidence ratings. We found a clear dissociation between the two areas: DLPFC TMS lowered confidence ratings, whereas aPFC TMS increased metacognitive ability, but only for the second half of the experimental blocks. These results support a functional architecture in which DLPFC reads out the strength of the sensory evidence and relays it to aPFC, which makes the confidence judgment by potentially incorporating additional, nonperceptual information. Indeed, simulations from a model that incorporates these putative DLPFC and aPFC functions reproduced our behavioral results. These findings establish DLPFC and aPFC as distinct nodes in a metacognitive network and suggest specific contributions from each of these regions to confidence generation. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is known to be critical for metacognition. Two of its subregions, the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and the anterior PFC (aPFC), have been specifically implicated in confidence generation. However, it is unclear whether these regions have distinct functions related to the underlying metacognitive computation. Using a causal intervention with transcranial magnetic stimulation, we demonstrate that DLPFC and aPFC have dissociable contributions: targeting DLPFC decreased average confidence ratings, whereas targeting aPFC affected metacognitive scores specifically. Based on these results, we postulated specific functions for DLPFC and aPFC in metacognitive computation and corroborated them using a computational model that reproduced our results. Our causal results reveal the existence of a specialized modular organization in PFC for confidence generation.

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.3484-17.2018

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • With some notable exceptions, the locus of action of the effects of metacognitive interventions remains poorly understood.

    “However, with some notable exceptions (Shekhar & Rahnev 2018), the locus of action of these effects remains poorly understood.”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Shekhar & Rahnev 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: 36

  1. Allen M, Frank D, Samuel Schwarzkopf DS, Fardo F, Winston JS, Hauser TU, Rees G (2016) Unexpected arousal modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence. Elife 5:e18103. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bang JW, Shekhar M, Rahnev D (2017) Sensory noise increases metacogni- tive efficiency. Available at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/ 09/15/189399. Accessed February 24, 2018.
  3. Bor D, Schwartzman DJ, Barrett AB, Seth AK (2017) Theta-burst transcranial mag- netic stimulation to the prefrontal or parietal cortex does not impair metacogni- tive visual awareness. PLoS One 12:e0171793. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  4. Borckardt JJ, Nahas Z, Koola J, George MS (2006) Estimating resting motor thresholds in transcranial magnetic stimulation research and practice. J ECT 22:169 -175. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  5. De Martino B, Fleming SM, Garrett N, Dolan RJ (2013) Confidence in value-based choice. Nat Neurosci 16:105-110. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  6. Domenech P, Koechlin E (2015) Executive control and decision-making in the prefrontal cortex. Curr Opin Behav Sci 1:101-106. CrossRef · DOI
  7. Fleck MS, Daselaar SM, Dobbins IG, Cabeza R (2006) Role of prefrontal and ante- rior cingulate regions in decision-making processes shared by memory and non- memory tasks. Cereb Cortex 16:1623-1630. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  8. Fleming SM, Weil RS, Nagy Z, Dolan RJ, Rees G (2010) Relating introspec- tive accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science 329: 1541-1543. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fleming SM, Dolan RJ, Frith CD (2012a) Metacognition: computation, bi- ology and function. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1280 -1286. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fleming SM, Huijgen J, Dolan RJ (2012b) Prefrontal contributions to meta- cognition in perceptual decision making. J Neurosci 32:6117-6125. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  11. Fleming SM, Ryu J, Golfinos JG, Blackmon KE (2014) Domain-specific im- pairment in metacognitive accuracy following anterior prefrontal lesions. Brain 137:2811-2822. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  12. Fleming SM, Maniscalco B, Ko Y, Amendi N, Ro T, Lau H (2015) Action- specific disruption of perceptual confidence. Psychol Sci 26:89 -98. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  13. Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  14. Henson RN, Rugg MD, Shallice T, Dolan RJ (2000) Confidence in recogni- tion memory for words: dissociating right prefrontal roles in episodic retrieval. J Cogn Neurosci 12:913-923. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  15. Janowsky JS, Shimamura AP, Kritchevsky M, Squire LR (1989) Cognitive impairment following frontal lobe damage and its relevance to human amnesia. Behav Neurosci 103:548 -560. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  16. Kaas AL, van Mier H, Goebel R (2007) The neural correlates of human working memory for haptically explored object orientations. Cereb Cor- tex 17:1637-1649. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  17. Koechlin E, Basso G, Pietrini P, Panzer S, Grafman J (1999) The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition. Nature 399:148 -151. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  18. Lara AH, Wallis JD (2015) The role of prefrontal cortex in working mem- ory: a mini review. Front Syst Neurosci 9:173. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  19. Maniscalco B, Lau H (2012) A signal detection theoretic approach for esti- mating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings. Conscious Cogn 21:422-430. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  20. Maniscalco B, McCurdy LY, Odegaard B, Lau H (2017) Limited cognitive resources explain a trade-off between perceptual and metacognitive vigi- lance. J Neurosci 37:1213-1224. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  21. Metcalfe J, Shimamura AP (1994) Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  22. Morales J, Lau H, Fleming SM (2017) Domain-specific patterns of activity support metacognition in human prefrontal cortex. Available at: https:// www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/04/172445. Accessed October 14, 2017.
  23. Mueller ST, Weidemann CT (2008) Decision noise: An explanation for ob- served violations of signal detection theory. Psychon Bull Rev 15:465- 494. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  24. Nelson TO, Narens L (1990) Metamemory: a theoretical framework and some new findings. Psychol Learn Motiv 6:125-173. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  25. Parkin BL, Hellyer PJ, Leech R, Hampshire A (2015) Dynamic Network Mechanisms of Relational Integration. J Neurosci 35:7660 -7673. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  26. Rahnev D (2017) Top-down control of perceptual decision making by the pre- frontal cortex. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 26:464-469. CrossRef · DOI
  27. Rahnev D, Koizumi A, McCurdy LY, D'Esposito M, Lau H (2015) Confi- dence leak in perceptual decision making. Psychol Sci 26:1664 -1680. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  28. Ramnani N, Owen AM (2004) Anterior prefrontal cortex: insights into function from anatomy and neuroimaging. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:184 -194. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  29. Rounis E, Maniscalco B, Rothwell JC, Passingham RE, Lau H (2010) Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness. Cogn Neurosci 1:165-175. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page
  30. Ruby E, Maniscalco B, Peters MAK (2018) On a 'failed' attempt to manipulate visual metacognition with transcranial magnetic stimulation to prefrontal cortex. Conscious Cogn 62:34 -41. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S1053810017305226. Accessed May 5, 2018.
  31. Ryals AJ, Rogers LM, Gross EZ, Polnaszek KL, Voss JL (2016) Associative recognition memory awareness improved by theta-burst stimulation of frontopolar cortex. Cereb Cortex 26:1200 -1210. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  32. Semendeferi K, Armstrong E, Schleicher A, Zilles K, Van Hoesen GW (2001) Prefrontal cortex in humans and apes: A comparative study of area 10. Am J Phys Anthropol 114:224 -241. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  33. Shimamura AP (2000a) Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Conscious Cogn 9:313-323; discussion 324 -326. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  34. Siegel M, Buschman TJ, Miller EK (2015) Cortical information flow during flexible sensorimotor decisions. Science 348:1352-1355. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  35. van den Berg R, Yoo AH, Ma WJ (2017) Fechner's law in metacognition: a quantitative model of visual working memory confidence. Psychol Rev 124:197-214. CrossRef Medline · DOI
  36. Yeung N, Summerfield C (2012) Metacognition in human decision-mak- ing: confidence and error monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1310 -1321. CrossRef Medline · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shekhar, M., & Rahnev, D.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2018-05-02
Volume
38
Issue
22
Pages
5078-5087
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2790434815
Cited by
154
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5
FWCI
6.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Georgia Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior prefrontal cortex, perceptual decision making, transcranial magnetic stimulation, sensory evidence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Visual Perception, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, 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