Cargando…

I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?

Metacognition–the ability of individuals to monitor one’s own cognitive performance and decisions–is often studied empirically based on the retrospective confidence ratings. In experimental research, participants are asked to report how sure they are in their response, or to report how well their pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Polyanskaya, Leona
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9995880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36910778
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128200
_version_ 1784902917627576320
author Polyanskaya, Leona
author_facet Polyanskaya, Leona
author_sort Polyanskaya, Leona
collection PubMed
description Metacognition–the ability of individuals to monitor one’s own cognitive performance and decisions–is often studied empirically based on the retrospective confidence ratings. In experimental research, participants are asked to report how sure they are in their response, or to report how well their performance in high-level cognitive or low-level perceptual tasks is. These retrospective confidence ratings are used as a measure of monitoring effectiveness: larger difference in confidence ratings assigned to correct and incorrect responses reflects better ability to estimate the likelihood of making an error by an experiment participant, or better metacognitive monitoring ability. We discuss this underlying assumption and provide some methodological consideration that might interfere with interpretation of results, depending on what is being asked to evaluate, how the confidence response is elicited, and the overall proportion of different trial types within one experimental session. We conclude that mixing trials on which decision confidence is assigned when positive evidence needs to be evaluated and the trials on which absence of positive evidence needs to be evaluated should be avoided. These considerations might be important when designing experimental work to explore metacognitive efficiency using retrospective confidence ratings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9995880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99958802023-03-10 I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know? Polyanskaya, Leona Front Psychol Psychology Metacognition–the ability of individuals to monitor one’s own cognitive performance and decisions–is often studied empirically based on the retrospective confidence ratings. In experimental research, participants are asked to report how sure they are in their response, or to report how well their performance in high-level cognitive or low-level perceptual tasks is. These retrospective confidence ratings are used as a measure of monitoring effectiveness: larger difference in confidence ratings assigned to correct and incorrect responses reflects better ability to estimate the likelihood of making an error by an experiment participant, or better metacognitive monitoring ability. We discuss this underlying assumption and provide some methodological consideration that might interfere with interpretation of results, depending on what is being asked to evaluate, how the confidence response is elicited, and the overall proportion of different trial types within one experimental session. We conclude that mixing trials on which decision confidence is assigned when positive evidence needs to be evaluated and the trials on which absence of positive evidence needs to be evaluated should be avoided. These considerations might be important when designing experimental work to explore metacognitive efficiency using retrospective confidence ratings. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9995880/ /pubmed/36910778 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128200 Text en Copyright © 2023 Polyanskaya. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Polyanskaya, Leona
I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title_full I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title_fullStr I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title_full_unstemmed I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title_short I know that I know. But do I know that I do not know?
title_sort i know that i know. but do i know that i do not know?
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9995880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36910778
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128200
work_keys_str_mv AT polyanskayaleona iknowthatiknowbutdoiknowthatidonotknow