ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2020
Second Guessing in Perceptual Decision-Making.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Think twice: Re-assessing confidence improves visual metacognition.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human subjects of both sexes were asked to make a perceptual decision between multiple directions of visual motion. In addition to reporting a primary choice, they also had to report a second guess, indicating which of the remaining options they would rather bet on, assuming that they got their primary choice wrong. The second guess was clearly informed by the amounts of sensory evidence that were provided for the different options. A single computational integration-to-threshold model, based on the assumption that the second guess is determined by the rank ordering of accumulated evidence at or shortly after the time of the decision, was able to explain the distribution of primary choices, associated response times, and the distribution of second guesses. This suggests that the decision-maker has access to how well supported unchosen options are by the sensory evidence.
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.