ArticleConsciousness and cognition2018
On a 'failed' attempt to manipulate visual metacognition with transcranial magnetic stimulation to prefrontal cortex.
Article in Consciousness and cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptual metacognition of human faces is causally supported by function of the lateral prefrontal cortex.Communications biology · 2020Article
- Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Competitive Frontoparietal Interactions Mediate Implicit Inferences.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Response to Ruby et al: On a 'failed' attempt to manipulate conscious perception with transcranial magnetic stimulation to prefrontal cortex.Consciousness and cognition · 2018Article
- Distinguishing the Roles of Dorsolateral and Anterior PFC in Visual Metacognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rounis, Maniscalco, Rothwell, Passingham, and Lau (2010) reported that stimulation of prefrontal cortex impairs visual metacognition. Bor, Schwartzman, Barrett, and Seth (2017) attempted to replicate this result, but adopted an experimental design that reduced their chanceof obtaining positive findings. Despite that, their results appeared initially consistent with those of Rounis et al., but they subsequently claimed it was necessary to discard ∼30% of their subjects, after which they reported a null result. Using computer simulations, we found that, contrary to their supposed purpose, excluding subjects by Bor et al.'s criteria does not reduce false positive rates. Including both their positive and negative result in a Bayesian framework, we show the correct interpretation is that PFC stimulation likely impaired visual metacognition, exactly contradicting Bor et al.'s claims. That lesion and inactivation studies demonstrate similar positive effects further suggests that Bor et al.'s reported negative finding isn't evidence against the role of prefrontal cortex in metacognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.