ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2019
A quantitative confidence signal detection model: 2. Confidence analysis.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation induces stochastic resonance in vestibular perceptual thresholds assessed efficiently using confidence reports.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Your Vestibular Thresholds May Be Lower Than You Think: Cognitive Biases in Vestibular Psychophysics.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Vestibular perceptual thresholds for rotation about the yaw, roll, and pitch axes.Experimental brain research · 2023Article
- Vestibular Precision at the Level of Perception, Eye Movements, Posture, and Neurons.Neuroscience · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Decision making is a fundamental subfield within neuroscience. While recent findings have yielded major advances in our understanding of decision making, confidence in such decisions remains poorly understood. In this paper, we present a confidence signal detection (CSD) model that combines a standard signal detection model yielding a noisy decision variable with a model of confidence. The CSD model requires quantitative measures of confidence obtained by recording confidence probability judgments. Specifically, we model confidence probability judgments for binary direction recognition (e.g., did I move left or right) decisions. We use our CSD model to study both confidence calibration (i.e., how does confidence compare with performance) and the distributions of confidence probability judgments. We evaluate two variants of our CSD model: a conventional model with two free parameters (CSD2) that assumes that confidence is well calibrated and our new model with three free parameters (CSD3) that includes an additional confidence scaling factor. On average, our CSD2 and CSD3 models explain 73 and 82%, respectively, of the variance found in our empirical data set. Furthermore, for our large data sets consisting of 3,600 trials per subject, correlation and residual analyses suggest that the CSD3 model better explains the predominant aspects of the empirical data than the CSD2 model, especially for subjects whose confidence is not well calibrated. Moreover, simulations show that asymmetric confidence distributions can lead traditional confidence calibration analyses to suggest "underconfidence" even when confidence is perfectly calibrated. These findings show that this CSD model can be used to help improve our understanding of confidence and decision making.
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.