Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31215314›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2019

A quantitative confidence signal detection model: 2. Confidence analysis.

Yongwoo Yi, Wei Wang, Daniel M Merfeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yongwoo YiJenks Vestibular Physiology Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts.
Wei WangDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daniel M MerfeldOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Funding

Vestibular thresholds, including psychophysical response dynamicsR01DC004158 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI MERFELD, DANIEL M · 1999 to 2013
$4.9M
Employing Vestibular Thresholds to Improve Patient DiagnosisR01DC014924 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LEWIS, RICHARD F, MERFELD, DANIEL M · 2015 to 2019
$2.7M
Innovative Methodologies for measuring behavioral vestibular thresholdsR56DC012038 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY · PI MERFELD, DANIEL M · 2012 to 2012
$393k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004158NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014924NIDCD NIH HHS R56 DC012038
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, TheoreticalAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMetacognitionMotion PerceptionSignal Detection, Psychologicalconfidence calibrationconfidence ratingdecision makingprobability judgmentsthresholdsvestibular

Identifiers

PMID31215314
PMCPMC6766740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.