Literature DB >> 24554231

The subjective experience of object recognition: comparing metacognition for object detection and object categorization.

Julia D I Meuwese1, Anouk M van Loon, Victor A F Lamme, Johannes J Fahrenfort.   

Abstract

Perceptual decisions seem to be made automatically and almost instantly. Constructing a unitary subjective conscious experience takes more time. For example, when trying to avoid a collision with a car on a foggy road you brake or steer away in a reflex, before realizing you were in a near accident. This subjective aspect of object recognition has been given little attention. We used metacognition (assessed with confidence ratings) to measure subjective experience during object detection and object categorization for degraded and masked objects, while objective performance was matched. Metacognition was equal for degraded and masked objects, but categorization led to higher metacognition than did detection. This effect turned out to be driven by a difference in metacognition for correct rejection trials, which seemed to be caused by an asymmetry of the distractor stimulus: It does not contain object-related information in the detection task, whereas it does contain such information in the categorization task. Strikingly, this asymmetry selectively impacted metacognitive ability when objective performance was matched. This finding reveals a fundamental difference in how humans reflect versus act on information: When matching the amount of information required to perform two tasks at some objective level of accuracy (acting), metacognitive ability (reflecting) is still better in tasks that rely on positive evidence (categorization) than in tasks that rely more strongly on an absence of evidence (detection).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24554231     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0643-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  9 in total

1.  Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting, but not discriminating visual stimuli.

Authors:  Matan Mazor; Karl J Friston; Stephen M Fleming
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 2.  Metacognitive asymmetries in visual perception.

Authors:  Matan Mazor; Rani Moran; Stephen M Fleming
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2021-10-19

3.  Object detection in natural scenes: Independent effects of spatial and category-based attention.

Authors:  Timo Stein; Marius V Peelen
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Human metacognition across domains: insights from individual differences and neuroimaging.

Authors:  Marion Rouault; Andrew McWilliams; Micah G Allen; Stephen M Fleming
Journal:  Personal Neurosci       Date:  2018-10-12

5.  Illusions of control without delusions of grandeur.

Authors:  Daniel Yon; Carl Bunce; Clare Press
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2020-09-16

6.  Alpha oscillations and stimulus-evoked activity dissociate metacognitive reports of attention, visibility, and confidence in a rapid visual detection task.

Authors:  Matthew J Davidson; James S P Macdonald; Nick Yeung
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.004

7.  Metacognitive asymmetries in visual perception.

Authors:  Matan Mazor; Rani Moran; Stephen M Fleming
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2021-06-21

8.  Is there a G factor for metacognition? Correlations in retrospective metacognitive sensitivity across tasks.

Authors:  Audrey Mazancieux; Stephen M Fleming; Céline Souchay; Chris J A Moulin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2020-03-19

9.  An investigation of how relative precision of target encoding influences metacognitive performance.

Authors:  Sanne Kellij; Johannes Fahrenfort; Hakwan Lau; Megan A K Peters; Brian Odegaard
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 2.199

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.