ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Limited cue integration in metacognitive control decisions.
Article in Memory & cognition, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognitive judgments and decisions involve uncertainty and rely on probabilistic cues. Prior research shows that people integrate multiple cues when making judgments of learning (JOLs). The present study examined whether metacognitive control decisions are influenced by multiple cues as well. In each of two experiments, participants studied 60 words varying on two cues (Experiment 1: concreteness, emotionality; Experiment 2: font format, word frequency). In Experiment 1, all participants made restudy choices to maximize later recall, whereas in Experiment 2, half made restudy choices, and the other half provided JOLs. Participants who made restudy choices restudied their selected items, and all participants completed a recall test at the end of the experiment. At the group level, both cues influenced restudy choices in Experiment 1, but only one cue did so in Experiment 2. Individual-level analyses of Experiment 2 revealed that most participants used both cues, yet the direction of cue use differed across participants: Some participants more often selected items with cue values associated with lower JOLs, whereas others more often selected items with cue values associated with higher JOLs. Overall, effect sizes for cue effects on restudy choices were smaller than those for JOLs. These findings suggest that multiple cues guided metacognitive control decisions, but that cue integration and cue use were weaker and varied more across individuals than in metacognitive judgments. This pattern indicates that the alignment between monitoring and control is reduced by other factors influencing restudy choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42104179What 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.