Influence of reinforcement and its omission on trial-by-trial changes of response bias in perceptual decision making.

Discrimination performance in perceptual choice tasks is known to reflect both sensory discriminability and nonsensory response bias. In the framework of signal detection theory, these aspects of discrimination performance are quantified through separate measures, sensitivity (d') for sensory discriminability and decision criterion (c) for response bias. However, it is unknown how response bias (i.e., criterion) changes at the single-trial level as a consequence of reinforcement history. We subjected rats to a two-stimulus two-response conditional discrimination task with auditory stimuli and induced response bias through unequal reinforcement probabilities for the two responses. We compared three signal-detection-theory-based criterion learning models with respect to their ability to fit experimentally observed fluctuations of response bias on a trial-by-trial level. These models shift the criterion by a fixed step (1) after each reinforced response or (2) after each nonreinforced response or (3) after both. We find that all three models fail to capture essential aspects of the data. Prompted by the observation that steady-state criterion values conformed well to a behavioral model of signal detection based on the generalized matching law, we constructed a trial-based version of this model and find that it provides a superior account of response bias fluctuations under changing reinforcement contingencies.

No evidence of impaired visual and tactile metacognition in adults with tourette disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Premonitory urges in Tourette disorder are often linked to altered somatosensory processing, which might include deficits in metacognition. We explored tactile and visual metacognitive ability in people with Tourette disorder and healthy control participants. METHODS: Patients with Tourrete disorder and healthy control participants completed a tactile and a visual metacognitive task. On each trial, participants did a forced choice discrimination and then rated their confidence in their decision. To quantify metacognitive ability, we used m-ratio - a bias-free measure that allows for comparisons across modalities. Correlations between severity of tics and premonitory urges with tactile metacognitive sensitivity were also performed. RESULTS: Metacognitive ability in both tactile and visual domains was comparable between adults with Tourette disorder and healthy controls. We also found no evidence for correlations between tactile metacognitive ability and severity of premonitory urges or tic severity. CONCLUSIONS: Tactile and visual metacognition is not impaired in adults with Tourette disorder. These results question the role of altered tactile metacognition in pathophysiology of tic disorders.

Measuring metacognition of direct and indirect parameters of voluntary movement.

We can make exquisitely precise movements without the apparent need for conscious monitoring. But can we monitor the low-level movement parameters when prompted? And what are the mechanisms that allow us to monitor our movements? To answer these questions, we designed a semivirtual ball throwing task. On each trial, participants first threw a virtual ball by moving their arm (with or without visual feedback, or replayed from a previous trial) and then made a two-alternative forced choice on the resulting ball trajectory. They then rated their confidence in their decision. We measured metacognitive efficiency using meta-d'/d' and compared it between different informational domains of the first-order task (motor, visuomotor or visual information alone), as well as between two different versions of the task based on different parameters of the movement: proximal (position of the arm) or distal (resulting trajectory of the ball thrown). We found that participants were able to monitor their performance based on distal motor information as well as when proximal information was available. Their metacognitive efficiency was also equally high in conditions with different sources of information available. The analysis of correlations across participants revealed an unexpected result: While metacognitive efficiency correlated between informational domains (which would indicate domain-generality of metacognition), it did not correlate across the different parameters of movement. We discuss possible sources of this discrepancy and argue that specific first-order task demands may play a crucial role in our metacognitive ability and should be considered when making inferences about domain-generality based on correlations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance.

Confidence judgments are a central tool in metacognition research. In a typical task, participants first perform perceptual (first-order) decisions and then rate their confidence in these decisions. The relationship between confidence and first-order accuracy is taken as a measure of metacognitive performance. Confidence is often assumed to stem from decision-monitoring processes alone, but processes that co-occur with the first-order decision may also play a role in confidence formation. In fact, some recent studies have revealed that directly manipulating motor regions in the brain, or the time of first-order decisions relative to second-order decisions, affects confidence judgments. This finding suggests that confidence could be informed by a readout of reaction times in addition to decision-monitoring processes. To test this possibility, we assessed the contribution of response-related signals to confidence and, in particular, to metacognitive performance (i.e., a measure of the adequacy of these confidence judgments). In human volunteers, we measured the effect of making an overt (vs covert) decision, as well as the effect of pairing an action to the stimulus about which the first-order decision is made. Against our expectations, we found no differences in overall confidence or metacognitive performance when first-order responses were covert as opposed to overt. Further, actions paired to visual stimuli presented led to higher confidence ratings, but did not affect metacognitive performance. These results suggest that confidence ratings do not always incorporate motor information.

The Confidence Database.

Understanding how people rate their confidence is critical for the characterization of a wide range of perceptual, memory, motor and cognitive processes. To enable the continued exploration of these processes, we created a large database of confidence studies spanning a broad set of paradigms, participant populations and fields of study. The data from each study are structured in a common, easy-to-use format that can be easily imported and analysed using multiple software packages. Each dataset is accompanied by an explanation regarding the nature of the collected data. At the time of publication, the Confidence Database (which is available at https://osf.io/s46pr/) contained 145 datasets with data from more than 8,700 participants and almost 4 million trials. The database will remain open for new submissions indefinitely and is expected to continue to grow. Here we show the usefulness of this large collection of datasets in four different analyses that provide precise estimations of several foundational confidence-related effects.