ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2022
Confidence at the limits of human nested cognition.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards an integrative neuroscience of metacognition.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Metacognition and metacognitive monitoring in aging.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Type-1 and type-2 decisions feature computational noise of similar magnitude.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Microstructural organization of superior longitudinal fasciculus and cingulum bundle support metacognition driven cognitive offloading.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Going 'meta': a systematic review of metacognition and functional neurological disorder.Brain communications · 2025Review
- Metacognitive evaluation of postdecisional perceptual representations.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Think twice: Re-assessing confidence improves visual metacognition.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Knowing that you know that you know? An extreme-confidence heuristic can lead to above-chance discrimination of metacognitive performance.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Common computations for metacognition and meta-metacognition.Neuroscience of consciousness · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognition is the ability to weigh the quality of our own cognition, such as the confidence that our perceptual decisions are correct. Here we ask whether metacognitive performance can itself be evaluated or else metacognition is the ultimate reflective human faculty. Building upon a classic visual perception task, we show that human observers are able to produce nested, above-chance judgements on the quality of their decisions at least up to the fourth order (i.e. meta-meta-meta-cognition). A computational model can account for this nested cognitive ability if evidence has a high-resolution representation, and if there are two kinds of noise, including recursive evidence degradation. The existence of fourth-order sensitivity suggests that the neural mechanisms responsible for second-order metacognition can be flexibly generalized to evaluate any cognitive process, including metacognitive evaluations themselves. We define the theoretical and practical limits of nested cognition and discuss how this approach paves the way for a better understanding of human self-regulation.
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.