ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Implicit manifestation of prospective metacognition in betting choices enhances its efficiency compared to explicit expression.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptual sensitivity, but not metacognitive monitoring, is shaped by increases and decreases in control.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent metacognitive research has extensively investigated metacognitive efficiency (i.e., the accuracy of metacognition). Given the functional importance of metacognition for adaptive behavioral control, it is important to explore the nature of prospective metacognitive efficiency; however, most research has focused on retrospective metacognition. To understand the nature of prospective metacognition, it is essential to identify the factors that influence its efficiency. Despite its significance, research exploring the factors of prospective metacognitive efficiency remains scarce. We focused on the relationship between the efficiency of prospective metacognition and the manner in which metacognition is inferred. Specifically, we explored whether explicit metacognition based on verbal confidence reports and implicit metacognition based on bets produce differences in efficiency. Participants were instructed to either respond to a memory belief with a sound (explicit metacognition) or make a bet on its recallability (implicit metacognition) during a delayed match-to-sample task. The task was identical for all participants, except for the pre-rating instructions. We found that the efficiency of prospective metacognition was enhanced by the betting instructions. Additionally, we showed the possibility that this difference in metacognitive efficiency was caused by the difference in pre-rating variability between the instructions. Our results suggest that the way a person evaluates their own internal states makes the difference in the efficiency of prospective metacognition. This study is the first to identify a factor that regulates the efficiency of prospective metacognition, thereby advancing our understanding of the mechanisms underlying metacognition. These findings highlight that the potential influence of framing, such as instruction, can improve metacognitive efficiency.
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.