ArticleNature communications2022
Dynamic influences on static measures of metacognition.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metacognition and metacognitive monitoring in aging.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- dynConfiR: An R package for sequential sampling models of decision confidence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Metacognitive efficiency in learned value-based choice.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Gender and anxiety reveal distinct computational sources of underconfidence.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Conscious awareness, sensory integration, and evidence accumulation in bodily self-perception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Large-scale experimental investigation of the reliability of confidence measures.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Confidence reports during perceptual decision making dissociate from changes in subjective experience.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Neural mechanisms of metacognitive improvement under speed pressure.Communications biology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive assessment of current methods for measuring metacognition.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Information-Theoretic Measures of Metacognition: Bounds and Relation to Group Performance.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- No gender difference in confidence or metacognitive ability in perceptual decision-making.iScience · 2024Article
- Confidence control for efficient behaviour in dynamic environments.Nature communications · 2024Article
- How Sure is the Driver? Modelling Drivers' Confidence in Left-Turn Gap Acceptance Decisions.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Pharmacological Elevation of Catecholamine Levels Improves Perceptual Decisions, But Not Metacognitive Insight.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Confidence biases in problem gambling.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2024Article
- Metacognitive evaluation of postdecisional perceptual representations.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- The future of metacognition research: Balancing construct breadth with measurement rigor.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2024Review
- Affective valence does not reflect progress prediction errors in perceptual decisions.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Self-motion perception and sequential decision-making: where are we heading?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Feeling lucky? Prospective and retrospective cues for sensorimotor confidence.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
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
Humans differ in their capability to judge choice accuracy via confidence judgments. Popular signal detection theoretic measures of metacognition, such as M-ratio, do not consider the dynamics of decision making. This can be problematic if response caution is shifted to alter the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Such shifts could induce unaccounted-for sources of variation in the assessment of metacognition. Instead, evidence accumulation frameworks consider decision making, including the computation of confidence, as a dynamic process unfolding over time. Using simulations, we show a relation between response caution and M-ratio. We then show the same pattern in human participants explicitly instructed to focus on speed or accuracy. Finally, this association between M-ratio and response caution is also present across four datasets without any reference towards speed. In contrast, when data are analyzed with a dynamic measure of metacognition, v-ratio, there is no effect of speed-accuracy tradeoff.
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.