Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42099730›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Metacognitive monitoring and calibration in the vocal emotion recognition task.

Rachel-Tzofia Sinvani, Haya Fogel-Grinvald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Rachel-Tzofia SinvaniTalpiot Academic College, Holon, Israel.
Haya Fogel-GrinvaldSchool of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

calibrationemotionmetacognitionoverconfidencespeech

Identifiers

PMID42099730
PMCPMC13143681

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.