Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Cognition and Behavior

Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance

Elisa Filevich, Christina Koß and Nathan Faivre
eNeuro 23 April 2020, 7 (3) ENEURO.0326-19.2020; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0326-19.2020
Elisa Filevich
1Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany
2Research Training Group 2386 “Extrospection”, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
3Institute of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elisa Filevich
Christina Koß
1Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany
3Institute of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christina Koß
Nathan Faivre
4Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, Faculty of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8092 Geneva, Switzerland
5Center for Neuroprosthetics, Faculty of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8092 Geneva, Switzerland
6Laboratoire de Psychologie et Neurocognition, CNRS UMR 5105, Université Grenoble Alpes, 38400 Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nathan Faivre
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Extended Data
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    A, Task. B, Example trial with both continuous report (CR+) and first-order 2AFC response. On each 5 s trial, two stimuli pairs appeared serially in four consecutive intervals. Participants pressed one of two keys for the entire duration of the trial, tracking the visual presentation (continuous report). Following stimulus offset, participants reported which of the two stimuli had the longest duration overall. B, Experimental design. Each trial was one of the four possible conditions resulting from a combination of first-order 2ACF response and continuous report (CR+R+; CR+R−; CR−R+; or CR−R−). Participants rated their confidence in all conditions. Thus, the task demanded that participants make a first-order 2AFC judgment in every trial, but the corresponding overt action was only present in R+ conditions.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    A, Differences in confidence judgments between conditions. A 2 × 2 ANOVA on mean confidence judgments revealed that trials with continuous report (CR+) were associated with higher confidence. B, Relationship between first-order reaction times and confidence judgments. Linear mixed-effects regressions revealed that, as expected, confidence judgments had a strong negative relationship with first-order reaction times on a trial-wise level. This relationship was present in all R+ trials (R− trials were not included in this analysis) but was stronger in the subset of correct trials. Regression lines and confidence intervals around them represent the model fit. The model took continuous reaction times as input. For illustrative purposes, we plot open circles and error bars that represent mean ± 95% CI over participants after rounding reaction times and subtracting 0.5 s.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Differences in metacognitive performance between conditions. A, Metacognitive sensitivity quantified with a regression model on accuracy versus confidence. Estimated regression curves from the proxy for first-order 2AFC response (left) and overt first-order 2AFC response (right). The presence of a first-order 2AFC response did not affect the relationship between confidence and the first-order accuracy of the proxy. Open circles and error bars represent the mean ± 95% CI over participants after rounding confidence ratings. B, Metacognitive efficiency quantified with M-ratio. As in A, we found no evidence that either giving an overt first-order response (left) or pairing an action to perceptual input (right) improved metacognitive efficiency. The insets above the panels highlight (in gray) which trials were used for each of the analyses.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Power simulations. A, Data simulation strategy. We considered two conditions (in this case, CR+R+ and CR+R−) expected to differ in M-ratio. For each 1 of 250 experiments, we simulated 80 trials per condition, drawing three values for each of the “real” internal signal (top left row, i), a noisy confidence estimate (internal signal + metacognitive noise for each of two conditions; middle row, ii) and a value for the noisy proxy (bottom left row, iii). We fed the simulated trials into a logistic regression model, and determined the power of our analysis [i.e., the proportion of “experiments” in which the interaction term (representing a difference in metacognitive sensitivity between conditions) was significant (right)]. B, C, Results: power estimations for the analysis based on actual responses (B) and for proxy-based responses (C). D, The power difference between B and C. There are no differences in power when differences in M-ratios between two conditions are large (regions away from the diagonal), whereas there are small decreases in power for the proxy-based analysis for combinations of M-ratios that are closer to the diagonal.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Statistical table

    Data structureType of testPower/effect sizeStatistic
    a: Performance in first-order task (CR+R+ vs CR− R+)Mean per subject (continuous)Bayesian t testd = −0.02BF10 = 0.22
    b: Mean perceptual evidence (CR+R+ vs CR−R+)Mean per subject (continuous)Bayesian t testd = 0.36BF10 = 0.54
    c: interaction between overt first-order (R+/R−) and continuous report (CR+/CR−) on mean confidence (all trials)Single-trial confidence ratings (continuous)Bayesian mixed-effects linear regressionMean = −0.02 ± 0.01Evidence ratio = 0.10
    d: Main effect of CR+ on confidence (all trials)Single-trial confidence ratings (continuous)Bayesian mixed-effects linear regressionMean = 0.04 ± 0.02Evidence ratio = 75.92
    e: Main effect of first-order RT on confidence (R+ trials)Single-trial response times (continuous)Bayesian mixed-effects linear regressionMean = −0.15 ± 0.02Evidence ratio > 4000),
    f: Interaction between condition (CR+R+/CR+R−) and confidence on proxy accuracySingle-trial accuracy (binomial)Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regressionMean = −0.11 ± 0.39Evidence ratio = 1.57
    g: Main effect of confidence on proxy accuracy (CR+ trials)Single-trial confidence ratings (continuous)Bayesian mixed-effects linear regressionMean = 0.82 ± 0.32Evidence ratio = 116.65
    h: M-ratio between conditions (CR+R+ vs CR+R−)Posterior probability distributions (continuous)Differences between Highest density intervalsHDI = [−1.42, 0.89]NA
    • NA, Not applicable.

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Extended Data

    Supplementary Experimental codes, raw data, analysis, and simulation files. Download Extended Data, ZIP file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 3
Month/Month
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance
Elisa Filevich, Christina Koß, Nathan Faivre
eNeuro 23 April 2020, 7 (3) ENEURO.0326-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0326-19.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance
Elisa Filevich, Christina Koß, Nathan Faivre
eNeuro 23 April 2020, 7 (3) ENEURO.0326-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0326-19.2020
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • confidence
  • metacognition

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: New Research

  • Release of extracellular matrix components after human traumatic brain injury
  • Action intentions reactivate representations of task-relevant cognitive cues
  • Interference underlies attenuation upon relearning in sensorimotor adaptation
Show more Research Article: New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Transformed visual working memory representations in human occipitotemporal and posterior parietal cortices
  • Neural Speech-Tracking During Selective Attention: A Spatially Realistic Audiovisual Study
  • Nucleus Accumbens Dopamine Encodes the Trace Period during Appetitive Pavlovian Conditioning
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.