Cited by 151Memory Processes and InfluencesChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The comparative study of metacognition: Sharper paradigms, safer inferences

Open access
Smith, J. David, Beran, Michael J., Couchman, Justin J., Coutinho, Mariana V. C.·2008·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Results that point to animals' metacognitive capacity bear a heavy burden, given the potential for competing behavioral descriptions. In this article, formal models are used to evaluate the force of these descriptions. One example is that many existing studies have directly rewarded so-called uncertainty responses. Modeling confirms that this practice is an interpretative danger because it supports associative processes and encourages simpler interpretations. Another example is that existing studies raise the concern that animals avoid difficult stimuli not because of uncertainty monitored, but because of aversion given error-causing or reinforcement-lean stimuli. Modeling also justifies this concern and shows that this problem is not addressed by the common practice of comparing performance on chosen and forced trials. The models and related discussion have utility for metacognition researchers and theorists broadly, because they specify the experimental operations that will best indicate a metacognitive capacity in humans or animals by eliminating alternative behavioral accounts.

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 · 10.3758/pbr.15.4.679

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • This simple mechanism brings certainty under the same rubric as choice and reaction time and removes the need to resort to meta-cognitive explanations for certainty monitoring.

    “This simple mechanism brings certainty, which is commonly conceived as a subjective aspect of decision making, under the same rubric as choice and RT (1, 62) and removes the need to resort to meta-cognitive explanations for certainty monitoring (45).”

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. Smith JD 2007 Animal metacognition and consciousness In press Cleeremans A Bayne T Wilken P The Oxford Companion to Consciousness Oxford UK Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, J. D., Beran, M. J., Couchman, J. J., & Coutinho, M. V. C.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, J. David
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2008-08
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
679-691
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2077512231
Cited by
151
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD-38051, P01HD038051)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
metacognition, uncertainty monitoring, associative processing, aversion
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Attention, Awareness, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Discrimination Learning, Generalization, Stimulus, Humans, Judgment, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Species Specificity, Transfer, Psychology, Models, Statistical, Normal Distribution, Signal Detection, Psychological, Recognition, Psychology, 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