ArticleBMC psychology2024
The two-stage processing of judgment of confidence: evidence from ERP.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe judgment of confidence (JOC) refers to the confidence in the accuracy of the target item individuals have just retrieved and is a typical retrospective metacognitive monitoring process. In the classical paradigm of JOC, JOC occurs after the recognition or recall task. While initially viewed as a single-stage monitoring process, recent research on JOC suggests its internal mechanisms may be more complex, potentially encompassing both retrieval and monitoring processes. This study aims to delve into these mechanisms concerning neural temporal processes.
methodsIn this study, event-related potential (ERP) was used to compare N400 and slow-wave ERPs of high and low JOCs at different time windows using a classic JOC paradigm.
resultsBehavioral results showed an inverted-U shaped relationship between response time (RT) and JOCs, peaking at magnitude 3 before declining. There were significantly longer RT for low JOCs compared with high JOCs, along with lower recognition scores. The ERP results showed that low JOCs induced larger N400 in the right frontal lobe and right central area, while high JOCs induced larger slow-wave components (500 ~ 700ms) in the right frontal lobe.
conclusionsBased on these findings, the present study suggests that JOC involves two processing stages. N400 reflects the process of cue acquisition, while the slow-wave component reflects the process of cue application. Furthermore, a two-stage model was proposed and validated, enriching the study of metacognition monitoring mechanisms, offering insights into the processing mechanisms of retrospective metacognitive monitoring.
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.