Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37637303›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2023

Metacognitive Information Theory.

Peter Dayan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Towards an integrative neuroscience of metacognition.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  2. Does Reflective Thinking Improve the Ability to Plan in Light and Heavy Drinkers? A Clinical-Experimental Model of Metacognition.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Metacognition of ChatGPT in confidence judgements.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Computational and Neuronal Basis of Visual Confidence.Annual review of vision science · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. An entropy model of decision uncertainty.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter DayanMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capacity that subjects have to rate confidence in their choices is a form of metacognition, and can be assessed according to bias, sensitivity and efficiency. Rich networks of domain-specific and domain-general regions of the brain are involved in the rating, and are associated with its quality and its use for regulating the processes of thinking and acting. Sensitivity and efficiency are often measured by quantities called meta-

Indexed as

information theorymetacognitionm-ratioscoring rulessignal detection theory

Identifiers

PMID37637303
PMCPMC10449404
OpenAlexW4383957098

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.