Sure I'm Sure: Prefrontal Oscillations Support Metacognitive Monitoring of Decision Making

Wokke, Martijn E.; Cleeremans, Axel; Ridderinkhof, K. Richard

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1612-16.2016

Cited by 52 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4. Test for relationships between fluctuations in metacognitive adequacy (a trial-by-trial measure of metacognitive sensitivity; Wokke et al, 2017), and the BOLD signal separately for detection and for discrimination, and for yes and no responses within detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting (but not discriminating) visual stimuli

Mazor

Friston

Fleming

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Being confident in whether a stimulus is present or absent (a detection judgment) is qualitatively distinct from being confident in the identity of that stimulus (a discrimination judgment). In particular, in detection, evidence can only be available for the presence, not the absence, of a target object. This asymmetry suggests that higher-order cognitive and neural processes may be required for confidence in detection, and more specifically, in judgments about absence. In a within-subject, pre-registered and performance-matched fMRI design, we observed quadratic confidence effects in frontopolar cortex for detection but not discrimination. Furthermore, in the right temporoparietal junction, confidence effects were enhanced for judgments of target absence compared to judgments of target presence. We interpret these findings as reflecting qualitative differences between the neural basis of metacognitive evaluation of detection and discrimination, potentially in line with counterfactual or higher-order models of confidence formation in detection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting (but not discriminating) visual stimuli

Mazor

Friston

Fleming

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the Confidence > Decision contrast revealed a set of brain regions that has typically been found to be engaged in confidence computations (Fleming and Dolan, 2012;Cortese et al, 2016;Desender et al, 2016;Rahnev et al, 2016;Wokke et al, 2017;Bang and Fleming, 2018;Fleming et al, 2018;Morales et al, 2018;Shekhar and Rahnev, 2018). If the effects of early confidence computations were larger than the effect of late confidence computations, the Confidence > Decision contrast result would reveal a much smaller network of regions.…”

Section: Separating Perceptual Decision Making and Confidencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…These regions appeared in both experiments and were located in the prefrontal cortex (aPFC and dlPFC), the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), and near the temporoparietal junction (TPJ and IPL). Many of these areas have been linked to confidence computations in previous studies (Fleming and Dolan, 2012;Cortese et al, 2016;Desender et al, 2016;Rahnev et al, 2016;Wokke et al, 2017;Bang and Fleming, 2018;Fleming et al, 2018;Morales et al, 2018;Shekhar and Rahnev, 2018) but it has remained unclear whether such activations are stronger than activations that may be caused by the perceptual decision itself.…”

Section: Brain Areas More Active In Confidence Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overlapping and unique neural circuits are activated during perceptual decision making and confidence

Yeon

Shekhar

Rahnev

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word count: 178)Perceptual decisions are naturally accompanied by a sense of confidence in the accuracy of the decision. However, it remains unclear whether perceptual decision making and confidence are supported by the same or different neural circuits. To address this question, we conducted two functional MRI (fMRI) experiments in which we dissociated the periods related to perceptual decision making and confidence by either decorrelating their respective regressors or asking for confidence ratings only in the second half of the experiment. We found that perceptual decision making and confidence were supported by large and mostly overlapping brain circuits including frontal, parietal, posterior, and cingulate regions with the results being remarkably consistent across the two experiments. Further, the confidence period recruited a number of unique regions, whereas there was no evidence for the decision period recruiting unique regions not involved in the confidence period. These results suggest that the neural circuits supporting perceptual decision making and confidence have a very high degree of overlap, which suggests largely shared computational mechanisms with unique components for the confidence but not for the perceptual judgments.

show abstract

“…In recent years, however, dissociations between objective task performance and subjective ratings, and dissociations between sources of information supporting firstand second-order decisions have been observed (Wierzchoń et al 2014;Fleming et al 2015;Berg et al 2016;Wokke et al 2017;Palser et al 2018). Typically, metacognitive decisions follow first-order responses, thereby allowing certain sources of information to become available during second-order decision-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beta oscillations have repeatedly been shown to predict first-order decisions (Donner et al 2007;Donner et al 2009;Haegens et al 2011), to support maintenance of persistent activity (Siegel et al 2012;Engel et al 2010;Kloosterman et al 2015) to mediate long-range communication, and to play an important role in the preservation and 'awakening' of endogenous information (Spitzer and Haegens, 2017). Here, we focused on beta phase synchrony between motor regions and prefrontal cortex (Wokke et al 2017). Specifically, we expected both functional connectivity (beta phase synchrony) and metacognitive performance to increase when response information about first-order decisions would be accessible during metacognitive decision-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making

Wokke

Achoui

Cleeremans

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring and control of our decision process are key ingredients of adept decisionmaking. Such metacognitive abilities allow us to adjust ongoing behavior and modify future decisions in the absence of external feedback. Although metacognition is critical in many daily life settings, it remains unclear what information is actually being monitored and what kind of information is being used for metacognitive decisions. In the present study, we investigated whether response information connected to perceptual events contribute to metacognitive decision-making. Therefore, we recorded EEG signals during a perceptual color discrimination task while participants were asked to provide an estimate about the quality of their decision on each trial. Critically, the moment participants provided second-order decisions varied across conditions, thereby changing the amount of action information (e.g., response competition or response fluency) available for metacognitive decisions.Results from three experiments demonstrate that metacognitive performance improved when first-order action information was available at the moment metacognitive decisions about the perceptual task had to be provided. This behavioral effect was accompanied by enhanced functional connectivity (beta phase synchrony) between motor areas and prefrontal regions, exclusively observed during metacognitive decision-making. Our findings demonstrate that action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making, thereby painting a picture of metacognition as a secondorder process, integrating sensory evidence and the state of the decider during decisionmaking. SignificanceMonitoring and control of our decision process is a critical part of every day decisionmaking. When feedback is not available, metacognitive skills enable us to modify current behavior and adapt prospective decision-making. Here, we investigated what kind information is being used to compute an estimate about the quality of our decisions.Results demonstrate that during perceptual decision-making, information about one's actions towards perceptual events is being used to evaluate the quality of one's decisions. EEG results indicate that functional connectivity between motor regions and prefrontal cortex could serve as a mechanism to convey action information during metacognitive decision-making. Considered together, our results demonstrate that postdecisional information contributes to metacognition, thereby evaluating not only what one perceives (e.g., strength of perceptual evidence) but also how one responds towards perceptual events.

show abstract

Sure I'm Sure: Prefrontal Oscillations Support Metacognitive Monitoring of Decision Making

Cited by 52 publications

References 64 publications

Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting (but not discriminating) visual stimuli

Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting (but not discriminating) visual stimuli

Overlapping and unique neural circuits are activated during perceptual decision making and confidence

Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About