Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32246029›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Similar history biases for distinct prospective decisions of self-performance.

Ning Mei, Sean Rankine, Einar Olafsson, David Soto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Consensus Goals in the Field of Visual Metacognition.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Article
  4. Partially Overlapping Neural Correlates of Metacognitive Monitoring and Metacognitive Control.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors.

Ning MeiBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, San Sebastian, Spain.
Sean RankineImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Einar OlafssonImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
David SotoBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, San Sebastian, Spain. d.soto@bcbl.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metacognition can be deployed retrospectively -to reflect on the correctness of our behavior- or prospectively -to make predictions of success in one's future behavior or make decisions about strategies to solve future problems. We investigated the factors that determine prospective decision making. Human participants performed a visual discrimination task followed by ratings of visibility and response confidence. Prior to each trial, participants made prospective judgments. In Experiment 1, they rated their belief of future success. In Experiment 2, they rated their decision to adopt a focused attention state. Prospective beliefs of success were associated with no performance changes while prospective decisions to engage attention were followed by better self-evaluation of the correctness of behavioral responses. Using standard machine learning classifiers we found that the current prospective decision could be predicted from information concerning task-correctness, stimulus visibility and response confidence from previous trials. In both Experiments, awareness and confidence were more diagnostic of the prospective decision than task correctness. Notably, classifiers trained with prospective beliefs of success in Experiment 1 predicted decisions to engage in Experiment 2 and vice-versa. These results indicate that the formation of these seemingly different prospective decisions share a common, dynamic representational structure.

Indexed as

BiasDecision MakingSelf-AssessmentAdolescentAdultFemaleForecastingHumansJudgmentMachine LearningMaleMetacognitionMiddle AgedSignal Detection, PsychologicalTask Performance and AnalysisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32246029
PMCPMC7125132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.