Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462212›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2023

We know what stops you from thinking forever: A metacognitive perspective.

Rakefet Ackerman, Kinga Morsanyi

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rakefet AckermanFaculty of Data and Decision Sciences, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel ackerman@technion.ac.il; technion.ac.il.
Kinga MorsanyiCentre for Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK k.e.morsanyi@lboro.ac.uk; lboro.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7550-1454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary addresses omissions in De Neys's model of fast-and-slow thinking from a metacognitive perspective. We review well-established meta-reasoning monitoring (e.g., confidence) and control processes (e.g., rethinking) that explain mental effort regulation. Moreover, we point to individual, developmental, and task design considerations that affect this regulation. These core issues are completely ignored or mentioned in passing in the target article.

Indexed as

MetacognitionThinkingHumansProblem Solving

Identifiers

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.