ArticleJournal of Intelligence2023
Metacognitive Differences in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Cognition: A Cross-Sectional Study Employing Online Measures.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective Assessment of Cognition for Detecting Subjective Cognitive Decline Is More Accurate than Subjective Estimations: The Role of Trait Affect.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Functional-structural co-dependent brain mapping of metamemory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Article
- Is the MMSE enough for MCI? A narrative review of the usefulness of the MMSE.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Metacognitive Awareness of Older Adult Drivers with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Relationships with Demographics, Subjective Evaluation of Cognition, and Driving Self-Efficacy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Efficacy of a Metacognitive Training Program in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A 6-Month Follow-Up Clinical Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Metacognitive beliefs of efficacy about daily life situations and use of cognitive strategies in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to examine metacognitive abilities in individuals diagnosed with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) by using online metacognitive measures during cognitive tasks. A total of 100 participants were enrolled, all aged 50 or older (mean age = 61.98; SD = 6.27), and with a minimum of six years of education (mean = 14.95; SD = 2.94). The sample included 50 individuals with aMCI (34 females) and 50 healthy controls (HC) (33 females). Both groups underwent metacognitive versions of memory tasks (Doors and People) and executive functions tasks (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). Metacognition was assessed through confidence ratings given after each answer (referred to as metacognitive monitoring) and the accuracy of the participants' decisions to include or exclude answers from their final scores (known as metacognitive control). The results showed that although individuals with aMCI were aware of their cognitive limitations-evidenced by their lower confidence ratings across all tasks-they still exhibited overconfidence relative to their actual performance. Moreover, they included a greater number of incorrect answers in their final scores compared to the healthy control group. These findings suggest that while individuals with aMCI retain some level of awareness, their self-evaluations appear to lack precision. This observation was consistent across both types of cognitive tasks. The results underscore the need for additional research to better understand metacognition in MCI as well as the interplay between metacognitive monitoring and control.
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.