Literature DB >> 24079931

Measures of metacognition on signal-detection theoretic models.

Adam B Barrett1, Zoltan Dienes1, Anil K Seth1.   

Abstract

Analyzing metacognition, specifically knowledge of accuracy of internal perceptual, memorial, or other knowledge states, is vital for many strands of psychology, including determining the accuracy of feelings of knowing and discriminating conscious from unconscious cognition. Quantifying metacognitive sensitivity is however more challenging than quantifying basic stimulus sensitivity. Under popular signal-detection theory (SDT) models for stimulus classification tasks, approaches based on Type II receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves or Type II d-prime risk confounding metacognition with response biases in either the Type I (classification) or Type II (metacognitive) tasks. A new approach introduces meta-d': The Type I d-prime that would have led to the observed Type II data had the subject used all the Type I information. Here, we (a) further establish the inconsistency of the Type II d-prime and ROC approaches with new explicit analyses of the standard SDT model and (b) analyze, for the first time, the behavior of meta-d' under nontrivial scenarios, such as when metacognitive judgments utilize enhanced or degraded versions of the Type I evidence. Analytically, meta-d' values typically reflect the underlying model well and are stable under changes in decision criteria; however, in relatively extreme cases, meta-d' can become unstable. We explore bias and variance of in-sample measurements of meta-d' and supply MATLAB code for estimation in general cases. Our results support meta-d' as a useful measure of metacognition and provide rigorous methodology for its application. Our recommendations are useful for any researchers interested in assessing metacognitive accuracy. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24079931     DOI: 10.1037/a0033268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  42 in total

1.  Unskilled but subjectively aware: Metacognitive monitoring ability and respective awareness in low-performing students.

Authors:  Marion Händel; Eva S Fritzsche
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-02

Review 2.  The methodological puzzle of phenomenal consciousness.

Authors:  Ian Phillips
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Brain Structural Correlates of Metacognition in First-Episode Psychosis.

Authors:  Erkan Alkan; Geoff Davies; Kathryn Greenwood; Simon L H Evans
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 9.306

4.  Examining the robustness of the relationship between metacognitive efficiency and metacognitive bias.

Authors:  Kai Xue; Medha Shekhar; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2021-09-01

5.  On a 'failed' attempt to manipulate visual metacognition with transcranial magnetic stimulation to prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Eugene Ruby; Brian Maniscalco; Megan A K Peters
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2018-04-30

6.  Metacognitive impairment in active cocaine use disorder is associated with individual differences in brain structure.

Authors:  Scott J Moeller; Stephen M Fleming; Gabriela Gan; Anna Zilverstand; Pias Malaker; Federico d'Oleire Uquillas; Kristin E Schneider; Rebecca N Preston-Campbell; Muhammad A Parvaz; Thomas Maloney; Nelly Alia-Klein; Rita Z Goldstein
Journal:  Eur Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 4.600

7.  Intracranial markers of conscious face perception in humans.

Authors:  Fabiano Baroni; Jochem van Kempen; Hiroto Kawasaki; Christopher K Kovach; Hiroyuki Oya; Matthew A Howard; Ralph Adolphs; Naotsugu Tsuchiya
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study.

Authors:  Shannon M Locke; Pascal Mamassian; Michael S Landy
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2020-08-05

Review 9.  Sources of Metacognitive Inefficiency.

Authors:  Medha Shekhar; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  The nature of metacognitive inefficiency in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Medha Shekhar; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 8.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.