ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Visual confidence accurately tracks increasing internal noise with eccentricity in peripheral vision.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensory representations are inherently noisy, and monitoring this noise is essential for effective decision-making. This metacognitive ability of evaluating the quality of one's perceptual decision is referred to as perceptual confidence. However, whether perceptual confidence accurately tracks internal noise remains unresolved. Peripheral vision provides a natural testing ground for this question, yet previous studies report mixed results complicated by different definitions and measurements of confidence. Here, we used a normative Bayesian framework with incentivized confidence measurements to address these discrepancies. We tested the Bayesian-confidence hypothesis that confidence is derived from the posterior probability distribution of the feature being judged, given noisy sensory measurements. We tested two perceptual tasks while varying stimulus eccentricity: spatial localization and orientation estimation. We measured confidence by post-decision wagering, by which participants set a symmetrical range around the perceptual estimates. Participants earned higher reward for narrower confidence ranges but received zero reward if the range did not enclose the target. We estimated sensory noise from the perceptual responses to predict confidence, assuming that sensory noise linearly increases with eccentricity. We then compared a normative Bayesian model with three alternative models that challenged different assumptions. Across both tasks, the Bayesian ideal-observer model best predicted confidence. These results suggest that humans can accurately monitor the increased internal noise in peripheral vision and use this information to make optimal confidence judgments.
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.