Metacognitive sensitivity of subjective reports of decisional confidence and visual experience

作者: Manuel Rausch , Hermann J. Müller , Michael Zehetleitner

DOI: 10.1016/J.CONCOG.2015.02.011

关键词:

摘要: Previous studies provided contradicting results regarding metacognitive sensitivity estimated from subjective reports of confidence in comparison to visual experience. We investigated whether this effect content is influenced by the statistical method quantify sensitivity. Comparing logistic regression and meta-d a masked orientation task, shape random-dot motion we observed decisional was greater than about experience irrespective mathematical procedures. However, relationship between transform accuracy often not linear, implying that consistent measure argue science consciousness would benefit assessment both confidence, recommend as for future studies.

参考文章(49)
Joseph Jastrow, C. S. Peirce, On small differences in sensation Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. ,vol. 3, ,(1884)
Douglas M. Bates, Josae C. Pinheiro, Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS ,(2000)
Thomas D. Wickens, Elementary Signal Detection Theory ,(2001)
Peter Carruthers, Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness Blackwell Publishing. pp. 277- 286 ,(2001) , 10.1002/9780470751466.CH22
Zoltán Dienes, Subjective measures of unconscious knowledge. Progress in Brain Research. ,vol. 168, pp. 49- 269 ,(2008) , 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)68005-4
Stanislas Dehaene, Conscious and Nonconscious Processes:Distinct Forms of Evidence Accumulation? Biological Physics. ,vol. 60, pp. 141- 168 ,(2011) , 10.1007/978-3-0346-0428-4_7
John Arthur Swets, David Marvin Green, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics ,(1974)
Per Bruun Brockhoff, Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen, Analysis of sensory ratings data with cumulative link models Journal de la Société Française de Statistique & revue de statistique appliquée. ,vol. 154, pp. 58- 79 ,(2013)
Susan J. Galvin, John V. Podd, Vit Drga, John Whitmore, Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: Discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. ,vol. 10, pp. 843- 876 ,(2003) , 10.3758/BF03196546