Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39557811›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Optimal metacognitive decision strategies in signal detection theory.

Brian Maniscalco, Lucie Charles, Megan A K Peters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Brian Maniscalco *Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3116-6188
Lucie Charles *Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Alexandra House, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AZ, UK. l.charles@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4481-6779
Megan A K PetersDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0248-0816

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Signal detection theory (SDT) has long provided the field of psychology with a simple but powerful model of how observers make decisions under uncertainty. SDT can distinguish sensitivity from response bias and characterize optimal decision strategies. Whereas classical SDT pertains to "type 1" judgments about the world, recent work has extended SDT to quantify sensitivity for metacognitive or "type 2" judgments about one's own type 1 processing, e.g. confidence ratings. Here we further advance the application of SDT to the study of metacognition by providing a formal account of normative metacognitive decision strategies - i.e., type 2 (confidence) criterion setting - for ideal observers. Optimality is always defined relative to a given objective. We use SDT to derive formulae for optimal type 2 criteria under four distinct objectives: maximizing type 2 accuracy, maximizing type 2 reward, calibrating confidence to accuracy, and maximizing the difference between type 2 hit rate and false alarm rate. Where applicable, we consider these optimization contexts alongside their type 1 counterparts (e.g. maximizing type 1 accuracy) to deepen understanding. We examine the different strategies implied by these formulae and further consider how optimal type 2 criterion setting differs when metacognitive sensitivity deviates from SDT expectation. The theoretical framework provided here can be used to better understand the metacognitive decision strategies of real observers. Possible applications include characterizing observers' spontaneously chosen metacognitive decision strategies, assessing their ability to fine-tune metacognitive decision strategies to optimize a given outcome when instructed, determining over- or under-confidence relative to an optimal standard, and more. This framework opens new avenues for enriching our understanding of metacognition.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMetacognitionModels, PsychologicalPsychological TheorySignal Detection, PsychologicalHumansUncertaintyComputational modellingDecision-makingMetacognitionSignal detection theory

Identifiers

PMID39557811
PMCPMC12092500

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.