Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40258078›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

The confidence-noise confidence-boost (CNCB) model of confidence rating data.

Pascal Mamassian, Vincent de Gardelle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Pascal MamassianLaboratoire des systèmes perceptifs, Département d'études cognitives, École normale supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1605-4607
Vincent de GardelleCNRS and Paris School of Economics, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5977-5597

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last decade, different approaches have been proposed to interpret confidence rating judgments obtained after perceptual decisions. One very popular approach is to compute meta-d' which is a global measure of the sensibility to discriminate the confidence rating distributions for correct and incorrect perceptual decisions. Here, we propose a generative model of confidence based on two main parameters, confidence noise and confidence boost, that we call CNCB model. Confidence noise impairs confidence judgements above and beyond how sensory noise affects perceptual sensitivity. The confidence boost parameter reflects whether confidence uses the same information that was used for perceptual decisions, or some new information. This CNCB model offers a principled way to estimate a confidence efficiency measure that is a theory-driven alternative to the popular M-ratio. We then describe two scenarios to estimate the confidence boost parameter, one where the experiment uses more than two confidence levels, the other where the experiment uses more than two stimulus strengths. We also extend the model to experiments using continuous confidence ratings and describe how the model can be fitted without binning these ratings. The continuous confidence model includes a non-linear mapping between objective and subjective confidence probabilities that can be estimated. Altogether, the CNCB model should help interpret confidence rating data at a deeper level. This manuscript is accompanied by a toolbox that will allow researchers to estimate all the parameters of the CNCB model in confidence ratings datasets. Some examples of re-analyses of previous datasets are provided in S1 File.

Indexed as

JudgmentModels, StatisticalComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

PMID40258078
PMCPMC12043244

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.