Literature DB >> 26594876

Computations underlying confidence in visual perception.

Morgan L Spence1, Paul E Dux1, Derek H Arnold1.   

Abstract

Humans intuitively evaluate their decisions by forming different levels of confidence. Despite being highly correlated, decisional confidence and sensitivity can be differentiated. The computational processes underlying this remain unknown. Here we find that, for visual judgments concerning global direction, signal range has a greater impact on confidence than it does sensitivity. We equated sensitivity for stimuli containing different degrees of directional variability. This failed, however, to equate confidence-participants were less confident when judging more variable signals despite constant sensitivity. When stimuli were instead calibrated to equate confidence, participants were more sensitive when judging more variable signals. Directional range had no impact on an unrelated judgment of brightness, helping to establish that these results cannot be attributed to a simple decisional confound. Our complementary results show that directional sensitivity and decisional confidence rely on independent transformations of sensory input. We propose that confidence will generally be shaped by the range of differently tuned neural mechanisms responsive to input during evidence accumulation, with this having a lesser impact on sensitivity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26594876     DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  22 in total

1.  Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance.

Authors:  Elisa Filevich; Christina Koß; Nathan Faivre
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2020-05-20

2.  Serial dependence in the perception of visual variance.

Authors:  Marta Suárez-Pinilla; Anil K Seth; Warrick Roseboom
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Dobromir Rahnev; Rachel N Denison
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 12.579

4.  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 5.  Sources of Metacognitive Inefficiency.

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

6.  Judgments of agency are affected by sensory noise without recruiting metacognitive processing.

Authors:  Marika Constant; Roy Salomon; Elisa Filevich
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  An observer model of tilt perception, sensitivity and confidence.

Authors:  Derek H Arnold; Blake W Saurels; Natasha L Anderson; Alan Johnston
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 5.530

8.  Metacognitive Confidence Increases with, but Does Not Determine, Visual Perceptual Learning.

Authors:  Leopold Zizlsperger; Florian Kümmel; Thomas Haarmeier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Unexpected arousal modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence.

Authors:  Micah Allen; Darya Frank; D Samuel Schwarzkopf; Francesca Fardo; Joel S Winston; Tobias U Hauser; Geraint Rees
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  Error-related cardiac response as information for visibility judgements.

Authors:  Marta Łukowska; Michał Sznajder; Michał Wierzchoń
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.