Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Metacognition allows us to explicitly represent the uncertainty in our perceptions and decisions. Recent theories suggest that we use predictive models of our environment to optimise these introspective processes, but extant accounts disagree about the role prediction plays: some accounts suggest that we should have more sensitive subjective insight for predictable events, while others stress that metacognition should be more sensitive for surprising prediction errors. Here, two experiments compare these accounts. Participants performed actions to generate visual outcomes that could move in expected or unexpected directions. Across both experiments, signal detection analyses revealed more sensitive metacognition for unexpected outcomes. A combination of reverse correlation and computational modelling suggested this advantage arose because of a specific enhancement of metacognitive (rather than perceptual) gain to unexpected information. These results are consistent with higher-order inference models of introspective awareness and point to a mechanism that may optimise diverse aspects of cognition and behaviour in an unstable world.

Keywords

prediction metacognition confidence prediction error uncertainty awareness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andreassen

E. R.

Frith

C. D.

Yon

(2024). Public communication alters private confidence. PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/atc7s

Bahrami

Olsen

Latham

P. E.

Roepstorff

Rees

Frith

C. D.

(2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718

Bang

Aitchison

Moran

Herce Castanon

Rafiee

Mahmoodi

Lau

J. Y. F.

Latham

P. E.

Bahrami

Summerfield

(2017). Confidence matching in group decision-making. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0117

Bays

P. M.

Wolpert

D. M.

(2007). Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. The Journal of Physiology, 578(Pt 2), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2006.120121

Chandler

Mueller

Paolacci

(2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7

Christensen

Ilg

Giese

M. A.

(2011). Spatiotemporal tuning of the facilitation of biological motion perception by concurrent motor execution. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(9), 3493–3499. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4277-10.2011

Clark

(2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477

Cook

Press

Dickinson

Heyes

(2010). Acquisition of automatic imitation is sensitive to sensorimotor contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 840–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019256

Desender

Boldt

Yeung

(2018). Subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making. Psychological Science, 29(5), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744771

10.

Dogge

Custers

Gayet

Hoijtink

Aarts

(2019). Perception of action-outcomes is shaped by life-long and contextual expectations. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 5225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41090-8

11.

Flavell

J. H.

(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

12.

Fleming

S. M.

(2017). HMeta-d: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of metacognitive efficiency from confidence ratings. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2017(1), Article nix007. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/nix007

13.

Fleming

S. M.

(2020). Awareness as inference in a higher-order state space. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), Article niz020. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niz020

14.

Fleming

S. M.

Daw

N. D.

(2017). Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychological Review, 124(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000045

15.

Fleming

S. M.

Dolan

R. J.

Frith

C. D.

(2012). Metacognition: Computation, biology and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1280–1286. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0021

16.

Fleming

S. M.

Lau

H. C.

(2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443

17.

Friston

(2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787

18.

Frith

C. D.

(2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123

19.

Gilbert

S. J.

Bird

Carpenter

J. M.

Fleming

S. M.

Sachdeva

Tsai

P.-C.

(2020). Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000652

20.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A.

(1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley.

21.

Haarsma

Kaltenmaier

Fleming

S. M.

Kok

(2025). Expectations about presence enhance the influence of content-specific expectations on low-level orientation judgements. Cognition, 254, Article 105961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105961

22.

Heilbron

Meyniel

(2019). Confidence resets reveal hierarchical adaptive learning in humans. PLoS Computational Biology, 15(4), Article e1006972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006972

23.

Hommel

Müsseler

Aschersleben

Prinz

(2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878; discussion 878–937.

24.

Itti

Baldi

(2009). Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Research, 49(10), 1295–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.09.007

25.

Körding

K. P.

Wolpert

D. M.

(2006). Bayesian decision theory in sensorimotor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.003

26.

Lally

Frendo

Diedrichsen

(2011). Sensory cancellation of self-movement facilitates visual motion detection. Journal of Vision, 11(14), 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.14.5

27.

Lange

F. P. de

Heilbron

Kok

(2018). How do expectations shape perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002

28.

Lau

Rosenthal

(2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(8), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.009

29.

Maniscalco

Lau

(2012). A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021

30.

Mazor

Friston

K. J.

Fleming

S. M.

(2020). Distinct neural contributions to metacognition for detecting, but not discriminating visual stimuli. eLife, 9, Article e53900. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53900

31.

Meyniel

Schlunegger

Dehaene

(2015). The sense of confidence during probabilistic learning: A normative account. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(6), Article e1004305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004305

32.

Nelson

T. O.

Narens

(1994). Why investigate metacognition? In Metcalfe

Shimamura

A. P.

(Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). The MIT Press.

33.

Olawole-Scott

Yon

(2023). Expectations about precision metacognition and awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 2177–2189. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001371

34.

Peirce

Gray

J. R.

Simpson

MacAskill

Höchenberger

Sogo

Kastman

Lindeløv

J. K.

(2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y

35.

Petzschner

F. H.

Weber

L. A. E.

Gard

Stephan

K. E.

(2017). Computational psychosomatics and computational psychiatry: Toward a joint framework for differential diagnosis. Biological Psychiatry, 82(6), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.05.012

36.

Powers

A. R.

Mathys

Corlett

P. R.

(2017). Pavlovian conditioning–induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors. Science, 357(6351), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3458

37.

Press

Kok

Yon

(2020). The perceptual prediction paradox. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.003

38.

Press

Yon

(2019). Perceptual prediction: Rapidly making sense of a noisy world. Current Biology, 29(15), R751–R753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.054

39.

Rahnev

Fleming

S. M.

(2019). How experimental procedures influence estimates of metacognitive ability. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2019(1), Article niz009. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niz009

40.

Rao

R. P.

Ballard

D. H.

(1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580

41.

Richter

de Lange

F. P.

(2019). Statistical learning attenuates visual activity only for attended stimuli. eLife, 8, Article e47869. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47869

42.

Shea

Boldt

Bang

Yeung

Heyes

Frith

C. D.

(2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006

43.

Shea

Frith

C. D.

(2019). The global workspace needs metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.007

44.

Sherman

M. T.

Seth

A. K.

Barrett

A. B.

Kanai

(2015). Prior expectations facilitate metacognition for perceptual decision. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.04.015

45.

Sherman

M. T.

Seth

A. K.

Kanai

(2016). Predictions shape confidence in right inferior frontal gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(40), 10323–10336. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1092-16.2016

46.

Stephan

K. E.

Manjaly

Z. M.

Mathys

C. D.

Weber

L. A. E.

Paliwal

Gard

Tittgemeyer

Fleming

S. M.

Haker

Seth

A. K.

Petzschner

F. H.

(2016). Allostatic self-efficacy: A metacognitive theory of dyshomeostasis-induced fatigue and depression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 550. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00550

47.

Teufel

Dakin

S. C.

Fletcher

P. C.

(2018). Prior object-knowledge sharpens properties of early visual feature-detectors. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 10853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28845-5

48.

Thomas

E. R.

Yon

Lange

F. P. de

Press

(2020). Action enhances predicted touch. bioRxiv, 2020.03.26.007559. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.26.007559

49.

Wyart

Nobre

A. C.

Summerfield

(2012). Dissociable prior influences of signal probability and relevance on visual contrast sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(9), 3593–3598. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120118109

50.

Yeung

Summerfield

(2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0416

51.

Yon

(2021). Prediction and learning: Understanding uncertainty. Current Biology: CB, 31(1), R23–R25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.052

52.

Yon

de Lange

F. P.

Press

(2019). The predictive brain as a stubborn scientist. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.003

53.

Yon

Frith

C. D.

(2021). Precision and the Bayesian brain. Current Biology, 31(17), R1026–R1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.044

54.

Yon

Thomas

E. R.

Gilbert

S. J.

de Lange

F. P.

Kok

Press

(2023). Stubborn predictions in primary visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35, 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01997.

55.

Yon

Zainzinger

de Lange

F. P.

Eimer

Press

(2020). Action biases perceptual decisions toward expected outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 150(6), 1225–1236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000826

56.

Yuille

Kersten

(2006). Vision as Bayesian inference: Analysis by synthesis? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.42 MB

Enhanced Metacognition for Unexpected Action Outcomes

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material