Cited by 17Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

Variance misperception under skewed empirical noise statistics explains overconfidence in the visual periphery

Open access
Winter, Charles J., Peters, Megan A. K.·2022·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Perceptual confidence typically corresponds to accuracy. However, observers can be overconfident relative to accuracy, termed "subjective inflation." Inflation is stronger in the visual periphery relative to central vision, especially under conditions of peripheral inattention. Previous literature suggests inflation stems from errors in estimating noise (i.e., "variance misperception"). However, despite previous Bayesian hypotheses about metacognitive noise estimation, no work has systematically explored how noise estimation may critically depend on empirical noise statistics, which may differ across the visual field, with central noise distributed symmetrically but peripheral noise positively skewed. Here, we examined central and peripheral vision predictions from five Bayesian-inspired noise-estimation algorithms under varying usage of noise priors, including effects of attention. Models that failed to optimally estimate noise exhibited peripheral inflation, but only models that explicitly used peripheral noise priors-but used them incorrectly-showed increasing peripheral inflation under increasing peripheral inattention. Further, only one model successfully captured previous empirical results, which showed a selective increase in confidence in incorrect responses under performance reductions due to inattention accompanied by no change in confidence in correct responses; this was the model that implemented Bayesian estimation of peripheral noise, but using an (incorrect) symmetric rather than the correct positively skewed peripheral noise prior. Our findings explain peripheral inflation, especially under inattention, and suggest future experiments that might reveal the noise expectations used by the visual metacognitive system.

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/s13414-021-02358-2

Cites

110 of 112 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?

  • People misperceive sensory noise in the periphery of the visual field, leading to an inflation of perceptual confidence relative to perceptual acuity.

    “Similarly, in the perceptual domain, Winter & Peters (2022) found that people misperceive sensory noise in the periphery of the visual field, leading to an inflation of perceptual confidence relative to perceptual acuity.”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Winter & Peters 2022

    The Significance and Discussion sections link misestimation of peripheral visual noise to confidence that exceeds perceptual accuracy, supporting the proposed explanation. But the paper reports simulations of noise-estimation models and frames misperception in people as a hypothesis, not an empirical finding that people misperceive that noise. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

1 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Maniscalco, B., Castaneda, O. G., Odegaard, B., Morales, J., Rajananda, S., & Peters, M. A. K. (2020). The metaperceptual function: Exploring dissociations between confidence and task performance with type 2 psychometric curves. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5qrjn · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winter, C. J., & Peters, M. A. K.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Winter, Charles J.
  • Peters, Megan A. K.
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Published
2021-08-23
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
161-178
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
OpenAlex
W3195225214
Cited by
17
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
overconfidence, metacognition, noise estimation, visual periphery, Bayesian model, visual attention
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Bayes Theorem, Cognition, Humans, Vision, Ocular, Visual Perception

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