ArticleCommunications biology2025
Neural mechanisms of metacognitive improvement under speed pressure.
Article in Communications biology, 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.
- The effect of experimenter identification on (dis)obedience and its mechanisms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- The perils of omitting omissions when modeling evidence accumulation.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Neural mechanisms of metacognitive improvement under speed pressure.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Diminished reactivity effect of confidence rating on perceptual decision-making in depression.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
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
The ability to accurately monitor the quality of one's choices, or metacognition, improves under speed pressure, possibly due to changes in post-decisional evidence processing. Here, we investigate the neural processes that regulate decision-making and metacognition under speed pressure using time-resolved analyses of brain activity recorded using electroencephalography. Participants performed a motion discrimination task under short and long response deadlines and provided a metacognitive rating following each response. Behaviourally, participants were faster, less accurate, and showed superior metacognition with short deadlines. These effects were accompanied by a larger centro-parietal positivity (CPP), a neural correlate of evidence accumulation. Crucially, post-decisional CPP amplitude was more strongly associated with participants' metacognitive ratings following errors under short relative to long response deadlines. Our results suggest that superior metacognition under speed pressure may stem from enhanced metacognitive readout of post-decisional evidence.
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.