Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41915687›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Metacognitive efficiency in learned value-based choice.

Sara Ershadmanesh, Ali Gholamzadeh, Kobe Desender, Peter Dayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Sara ErshadmaneshDepartment of Computational Neuroscience, MPI for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2637-1953
Ali GholamzadehDepartment of Computational Neuroscience, MPI for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany.
Kobe DesenderBrain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Peter DayanDepartment of Computational Neuroscience, MPI for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metacognition, the ability to assess the quality of our own decisions, is a critical form of higher-order information processing. Metacognitive efficiency is therefore an essential measure of cognitive capability. When making decisions is simple, metacognitive judgments are also straightforward; thus, assessing metacognitive efficiency requires normalizing for the quality of underlying task performance. This is duly common in measures of efficiency popular in perceptual decision-making such as the M-ratio. However, such normalization is hard in reinforcement learning problems, because task difficulty changes dynamically. We therefore repurposed the central idea underlying the M-ratio, using confidence judgments to fashion a notional decision-maker (which we call a Backward model), assessing metacognitive sensitivity according to the quality of its virtual decisions, and quantifying metacognitive efficiency by comparing virtual and modelled actual qualities in the original decision-making task. We used simulated and empirical data to show that our measure of metacognitive sensitivity, the Backward performance, has comparable properties to other measures such as quadratic scoring, and that our measure of efficiency, the MetaRL.Ratio, is independent of empirical performance and is preserved across levels of task difficulty. We suggest that the MetaRL.Ratio as a promising tool for assessing metacognitive efficiency in value-based learning/decision-making.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorLearningMetacognitionCognitionComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDecision MakingHumansJudgmentReinforcement Machine Learning

Identifiers

PMID41915687
PMCPMC13102309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.