Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40897919›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Bits of confidence: Metacognition as uncertainty reduction.

Daniel Fitousi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 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

1 author.

Daniel FitousiDepartment of Psychology, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel. danielfi@ariel.ac.il.

Funding

Israel Science Foundation 1498/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do people know when they are right? Confidence judgments - the ability to assess the correctness of one's own decisions - are a key aspect of human metacognition. This self-evaluative act plays a central role in learning, memory, consciousness, and group decision-making. In this paper, I reframe metacognition as a structured exchange of information between stimulus, decision-maker (the actor), and confidence judge (the rater), akin to a multi-agent communication system. Within this framework, the actor aims to resolve stimulus uncertainty, while the rater seeks to infer the accuracy of the actor's response. Applying techniques from information theory, I develop three novel measures of metacognitive efficiency: meta-

Indexed as

Decision MakingJudgmentMetacognitionHumansUncertaintyConfidenceInformation theoryMetacognitionmeta-d’meta-IM-ratio

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.