ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Metacognitive monitoring and calibration in the vocal emotion recognition task.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: The influence of specific task demands on metacognition in socio-emotional processing, particularly emotion recognition, remains poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to address this gap by examining differences in metacognitive monitoring (MM) using self-rated confidence (SRC), metacognitive accuracy (MA), and objective vocal emotion recognition ability (ERA) across discrete emotions. Methods: To this end, we used a categorical emotion recognition task. A hundred participants listened and were asked to identify one of six vocal emotions (anger, sadness, surprise, happiness, fear, and neutrality) in eighteen semantically neutral sentences. Immediately following each recognition response, participants provided a retrospective SRC. Results: A series of one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed a significant main effect of emotion on MM, MA, and ERA. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated no significant differences between specific emotions for MM. Conversely, significant differences between emotions were observed for both MA and ERA, which exhibited a similar pattern of variability. Notably, sadness demonstrated the highest calibration and accuracy, while fear showed the poorest performance on both measures. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the differences in MA between emotions are primarily attributed to the accuracy of ERA variations rather than the variations in MM. These results indicate that specific emotional content acts as a distinct task demand, influencing performance and metacognitive outcomes. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms of MM in emotion recognition by comparing various MA indices across tasks and domains to provide a more comprehensive understanding of MA in the social domain.
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.