ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Iconic versus working memory metacognition to evaluate the richness of perception: a registered report.
Article in Royal Society open science, 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.
- Iconic versus working memory metacognition to evaluate the richness of perception: a registered report.Royal Society open science · 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 high capacity of human iconic memory (IM) has been taken as evidence that visual experience is rich and detailed, as introspection suggests. Opponents to this view argue instead that this impression is illusory, with conscious access being mostly limited to what we can attend to. To provide evidence of either view, in this registered report we compared metacognitive sensitivity levels between IM and working memory (WM) representations. The rationale was that, if pre-attentive IM information is as consciously accessible as attention-bounded WM information, metacognitive sensitivity should be comparable across the two memory systems. Replicating classic findings, our results showed that IM capacity exceeded WM capacity. Nevertheless, and despite matched performance, metacognitive sensitivity was higher in WM. We further examined whether reduced metacognition in IM could be explained by inflation-the tendency to overestimate perceptual richness-by comparing confidence levels across the two memory conditions. Pre-registered analyses showed no evidence of inflation, as IM was associated with lower confidence. Our findings suggest that IM supports identification with less consciously accessible information than WM, challenging rich-view interpretations of conscious perception.
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.