Ais Joaquín, Zylberberg Ariel, Barttfeld Pablo, Sigman Mariano
Laboratory of Integrative Neuroscience, Physics Department, FCEyN UBA and IFIBA, Conicet, Pabellón 1, Ciudad Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina; Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Almirante Juan Saenz Valiente 1010, C1428BIJ Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Laboratory of Integrative Neuroscience, Physics Department, FCEyN UBA and IFIBA, Conicet, Pabellón 1, Ciudad Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina; Laboratory of Applied Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Department, FCEyN UBA, Pabellón 1, Ciudad Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Neuroscience and Kavli Institute for Brain Science, Columbia University, New York 10032, NY, USA.
Cognition. 2016 Jan;146:377-86. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.006. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
We examine which aspects of the confidence distributions - its shape, its bias toward higher or lower values, and its ability to distinguish correct from erred trials - are idiosyncratic of the who (individual specificity), the when (variability across days) and the what (task specificity). Measuring confidence across different sessions of four different perceptual tasks we show that: (1) Confidence distributions are virtually identical when measured in different days for the same subject and the same task, constituting a subjective fingerprint, (2) The capacity of confidence reports to distinguish correct from incorrect responses is only modestly (but significantly) correlated when compared across tasks, (3) Confidence distributions are very similar for tasks that involve different sensory modalities but have similar structure, (4) Confidence accuracy is independent of the mean and width of the confidence distribution, (5) The mean of the confidence distribution (an individual's confidence bias) constitutes the most efficient indicator to infer a subject's identity from confidence reports and (6) Confidence bias measured in simple perceptual decisions correlates with an individual's optimism bias measured with standard questionnaire.
我们研究了置信度分布的哪些方面——其形状、对较高或较低值的偏差以及区分正确与错误试验的能力——是因人而异(个体特异性)、因时而异(不同日期的变异性)和因事而异(任务特异性)的。通过在四项不同感知任务的不同时段测量置信度,我们发现:(1) 对于同一受试者和同一任务,在不同日期测量时,置信度分布几乎相同,构成了一种主观指纹;(2) 跨任务比较时,置信度报告区分正确与错误反应的能力仅有适度(但显著)的相关性;(3) 对于涉及不同感觉模态但结构相似的任务,置信度分布非常相似;(4) 置信度准确性与置信度分布的均值和宽度无关;(5) 置信度分布的均值(个体的置信偏差)是从置信度报告中推断受试者身份的最有效指标;(6) 在简单感知决策中测量的置信偏差与用标准问卷测量的个体乐观偏差相关。