Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42104179›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Limited cue integration in metacognitive control decisions.

Luisa M Schulz, Arndt Bröder, Hannah Leitgeb, Monika Undorf

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Luisa M SchulzDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. luisa.schulz@uni-mannheim.de.
Arndt BröderDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Hannah LeitgebDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Monika UndorfDepartment of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cue integrationMetacognitive controlMetamemoryRestudy choices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.