• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

元认知的感知和社会成分。

The perceptual and social components of metacognition.

作者信息

Pescetelli Niccolo, Rees Geraint, Bahrami Bahador

机构信息

Department of Experimental Psychology.

Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Aug;145(8):949-65. doi: 10.1037/xge0000180. Epub 2016 Jun 16.

DOI:10.1037/xge0000180
PMID:27454040
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4961070/
Abstract

When deciding whether or not to bring an umbrella to work, your confidence will be influenced by the sky outside the window (direct evidence) as well as by, for example, whether or not people walking in the street have their own umbrella (indirect or contingent evidence). These 2 distinct aspects of decision confidence have not yet been assessed independently within the same framework. Here we study the relative contributions of stimulus-specific and social-contingent information on confidence formation. Dyads of participants made visual perceptual decisions, first individually and then together by sharing their wagers in their decisions. We independently manipulated the sensory evidence and the social consensus available to participants and found that both type of evidence contributed to wagers. Consistent with previous work, the amount people were prepared to wager covaried with the strength of sensory evidence. However, social agreements and disagreement affected wagers in opposite directions and asymmetrically. These different contributions of sensory and social evidence to wager were linearly additive. Moreover, average metacognitive sensitivity-namely the association between wagers and accuracy-between interacting dyad members positively correlated with dyadic performance and dyadic benefit above average individual performance. Our results provide a general framework that accounts for how both social context and direct sensory evidence contribute to decision confidence. (PsycINFO Database Record

摘要

在决定是否带伞上班时,你的信心会受到窗外天空(直接证据)的影响,也会受到例如街上行人是否带伞(间接或偶然证据)等因素的影响。决策信心的这两个不同方面尚未在同一框架内进行独立评估。在此,我们研究特定刺激信息和社会偶然信息对信心形成的相对贡献。参与者两两一组进行视觉感知决策,先是各自独立进行,然后通过在决策中分享他们的赌注一起进行。我们独立操控了参与者可获得的感官证据和社会共识,发现这两种证据都对赌注有影响。与先前的研究一致,人们准备下的赌注金额与感官证据的强度相关。然而,社会共识和分歧对赌注的影响方向相反且不对称。感官证据和社会证据对赌注的这些不同贡献是线性相加的。此外,平均元认知敏感性——即互动的两两成员之间赌注与准确性的关联——与二元组表现以及高于平均个体表现的二元组收益呈正相关。我们的研究结果提供了一个通用框架,解释了社会背景和直接感官证据如何共同影响决策信心。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》 )

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/45c2491689cb/xge_145_8_949_fig6a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/18f577000248/xge_145_8_949_fig1a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/a0279855124b/xge_145_8_949_fig2a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/9fc0d3d15812/xge_145_8_949_fig3a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/b0fa6cbdde3e/xge_145_8_949_fig4a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/957754b43056/xge_145_8_949_fig5a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/45c2491689cb/xge_145_8_949_fig6a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/18f577000248/xge_145_8_949_fig1a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/a0279855124b/xge_145_8_949_fig2a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/9fc0d3d15812/xge_145_8_949_fig3a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/b0fa6cbdde3e/xge_145_8_949_fig4a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/957754b43056/xge_145_8_949_fig5a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/37db/4961070/45c2491689cb/xge_145_8_949_fig6a.jpg

相似文献

1
The perceptual and social components of metacognition.元认知的感知和社会成分。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Aug;145(8):949-65. doi: 10.1037/xge0000180. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
2
Post-decision wagering after perceptual judgments reveals bi-directional certainty readouts.决策后押注在知觉判断后揭示了双向确定性读出。
Cognition. 2018 Jul;176:40-52. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.026. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
3
Sensory noise increases metacognitive efficiency.感觉噪音提高元认知效率。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Mar;148(3):437-452. doi: 10.1037/xge0000511. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
4
Metacognition across sensory modalities: Vision, warmth, and nociceptive pain.跨感觉模式的元认知:视觉、温度和伤害性疼痛。
Cognition. 2019 May;186:32-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.018. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
5
Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making.动作信息有助于元认知决策。
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 27;10(1):3632. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60382-y.
6
Sure I'm Sure: Prefrontal Oscillations Support Metacognitive Monitoring of Decision Making.确信即确信:前额叶振荡支持决策的元认知监控。
J Neurosci. 2017 Jan 25;37(4):781-789. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1612-16.2016.
7
Limited Cognitive Resources Explain a Trade-Off between Perceptual and Metacognitive Vigilance.有限的认知资源解释了感知警觉与元认知警觉之间的权衡。
J Neurosci. 2017 Feb 1;37(5):1213-1224. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2271-13.2016. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
8
Domain-specific and domain-general processes underlying metacognitive judgments.元认知判断背后的特定领域和一般领域过程。
Conscious Cogn. 2017 Mar;49:264-277. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.01.011. Epub 2017 Mar 8.
9
Reverse engineering of metacognition.元认知的反向工程。
Elife. 2022 Sep 15;11:e75420. doi: 10.7554/eLife.75420.
10
Prior expectations facilitate metacognition for perceptual decision.先前的预期有助于感知决策的元认知。
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Sep;35:53-65. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 May 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of interacting minds on response criterion in two person perceptual decision making.互动思维对两人知觉决策中反应标准的影响。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 10;15(1):24956. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09850-x.
2
Metacognitive sensitivity: The key to calibrating trust and optimal decision making with AI.元认知敏感性:校准对人工智能的信任与实现最优决策的关键。
PNAS Nexus. 2025 Apr 24;4(5):pgaf133. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf133. eCollection 2025 May.
3
Perceptual judgments are resistant to the advisor's perceived level of trustworthiness: A deep fake approach.

本文引用的文献

1
Confidence and certainty: distinct probabilistic quantities for different goals.置信度与确定性:针对不同目标的不同概率量值。
Nat Neurosci. 2016 Mar;19(3):366-74. doi: 10.1038/nn.4240.
2
Doubly Bayesian Analysis of Confidence in Perceptual Decision-Making.感知决策中信心的双重贝叶斯分析。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Oct 30;11(10):e1004519. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004519. eCollection 2015 Oct.
3
Automatic integration of confidence in the brain valuation signal.大脑估值信号置信度的自动整合。
感知判断不受顾问可感知的可信度水平的影响:一种深度伪造方法。
PLoS One. 2025 Apr 16;20(4):e0319039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319039. eCollection 2025.
4
Optimal metacognitive decision strategies in signal detection theory.信号检测理论中的最优元认知决策策略。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jun;32(3):1041-1069. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02510-7. Epub 2024 Nov 18.
5
Action-based confidence sharing and collective decision making.基于行动的信心共享与集体决策。
iScience. 2024 Sep 20;27(10):111006. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111006. eCollection 2024 Oct 18.
6
Are two naïve and distributed heads better than one? Factors influencing the performance of teams in a challenging real-time task.两个单纯且分散的头脑会比一个更好吗?影响团队在具有挑战性的实时任务中表现的因素。
Front Psychol. 2023 May 12;14:1042710. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042710. eCollection 2023.
7
Beyond collective intelligence: Collective adaptation.超越集体智慧:集体适应。
J R Soc Interface. 2023 Mar;20(200):20220736. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2022.0736. Epub 2023 Mar 22.
8
Exploring the effects of risk-taking, exploitation, and exploration on divergent thinking under group dynamics.探究在群体动力学下冒险、利用和探索对发散性思维的影响。
Front Psychol. 2023 Jan 18;13:1063525. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063525. eCollection 2022.
9
Diversity of opinions promotes herding in uncertain crowds.观点的多样性会促使不确定人群中的从众行为。
R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Jun 22;9(6):191497. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191497. eCollection 2022 Jun.
10
Three heads are better than two: Comparing learning properties and performances across individuals, dyads, and triads through a computational approach.三个臭皮匠,赛过诸葛亮:通过计算方法比较个体、二人组和三人组的学习属性和表现。
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 17;16(6):e0252122. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252122. eCollection 2021.
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Aug;18(8):1159-67. doi: 10.1038/nn.4064. Epub 2015 Jul 20.
4
The Sense of Confidence during Probabilistic Learning: A Normative Account.概率学习过程中的信心感:一种规范性解释。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Jun 15;11(6):e1004305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004305. eCollection 2015 Jun.
5
Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures.平等偏见会损害跨文化的集体决策。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Mar 24;112(12):3835-40. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421692112. Epub 2015 Mar 9.
6
A Duet for one.一人二重唱。
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Nov;36:390-405. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.003. Epub 2015 Jan 3.
7
Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time.选择确定性由证据和决策时间共同决定。
Neuron. 2014 Dec 17;84(6):1329-42. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015.
8
Action-specific disruption of perceptual confidence.特定动作对感知信心的干扰。
Psychol Sci. 2015 Jan;26(1):89-98. doi: 10.1177/0956797614557697. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
9
When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition.三个臭皮匠,赛过诸葛亮:协作认知的交互与独立益处
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Aug;22(4):1076-82. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0765-4.
10
Inferring on the intentions of others by hierarchical Bayesian learning.通过分层贝叶斯学习推断他人意图。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Sep 4;10(9):e1003810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003810. eCollection 2014 Sep.