ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Computational characterization of metacognitive ability in subjective decision-making.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metacognition is the process of reflecting on and controlling one's own thoughts and behaviors. Metacognitive ability is often measured through modeling the relationship between confidence reports and choice behavior in tasks where performance can be objectively measured. Previous work has explored whether metacognitive ability is conserved across different types of tasks, and across different domains such as perception and memory. However, it is unclear whether approaches to the assessment of metacognitive ability that have worked in these contexts can be extended to value-based decision-making where objective accuracy cannot be evaluated. Here, we compare metacognitive ability across different tasks spanning perception and valuation, using Bayesian hierarchical estimation of the parameters of a computational process model of confidence. This model captures metacognitive ability as the uncertainty of an individual's own decision uncertainty, and can do so in the space of any decision variable, regardless of whether it indexes external features or internal, subjective states. We find that metacognitive ability can be reliably estimated in both objective and subjective decision-making tasks, and is relatively well conserved across tasks, especially within domains and similar confidence reporting paradigms.
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.