Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41659544›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Visual confidence accurately tracks increasing internal noise with eccentricity in peripheral vision.

Luhe Li, Michael S Landy

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Luhe LiDepartment of Psychology, New York University.ORCID 0000-0002-0182-3952
Michael S LandyDepartment of Psychology, New York University.ORCID 0000-0002-2079-4552

Funding

SHAPE REPRESENTATION AND MULTIPLE DEPTH CUESR01EY008266 · NEI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI MICHAEL S LANDY · 1989 to 2026
$7.7M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY008266
6 · The paper itself

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

Bayesian modelingconfidenceeccentricityinternal noisemetacognitionperipheral vision

Identifiers

PMID41659544
PMCPMC12873793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.