ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Optimal metacognitive decision strategies in signal detection theory.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building worlds of your own: the functional role of metacognitive bias in metacognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Disentangling False Memories: Gray Matter Correlates of Memory Sensitivity and Decision Bias.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Flexible Relations Between Confidence and Confidence RTs in Post-Decisional Models of Confidence: A Reply to Chen and Rahnev.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Toward 'Computational-Rationality' Approaches to Arbitrating Models of Cognition: A Case Study Using Perceptual Metacognition.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2023Article
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
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
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.