Department of Psychology.
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Oct;151(10):2396-2417. doi: 10.1037/xge0001197. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
Despite many research efforts dedicated toward deciphering the functional architecture underlying metacognition, it is still unclear if there is a common metacognitive resource for different functional requirements. Here, using laboratory measures of metacognition across several domains in a large sample ( = 155), we examined whether metacognitive ability is determined by universal or modular processes, and whether "online" laboratory measures are related to "offline" self-report measures of real-world metacognition. Trial-by-trial ratings of confidence were collected in pairs of tasks tapping into the domains of visual perception and episodic memory, whereas in the attention-to-action domain, one task obtained trial-by-trial confidence ratings and the other signal-dependent measures of error awareness. Relationships between metacognitive efficiency scores across paradigms and domains were assessed using a combination of correlational and latent variable approaches. The results point to a mixture of domain-general (unity) and domain-specific (diversity) components. Specifically, Bayesian correlation estimates of metacognitive efficiency as well as confirmatory factor analysis of interdomain correlations suggested metacognition about perceptual judgments to be mostly domain-specific, whereas convergent indications for interrelations between metacognition in the domains of attention-to-action and memory implied the coexistence of partly specialized metacognitive subsystems. Notably, offline measures of metacognition represented online metacognitive bias rather than online metacognitive efficiency, underscoring prevalent skepticism whether self-report questionnaires provide a useful proxy in metacognition research, as they appear susceptible to potentially unreliable introspections and memory distortions. Overall, our results indicate a constitution of both universal and specialized parts for task-based metacognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
尽管人们付出了许多努力来揭示元认知背后的功能结构,但对于不同功能需求是否存在通用的元认知资源,仍不清楚。在这里,我们在一个大样本(n = 155)中使用多个领域的实验室元认知测量来检验元认知能力是由普遍的还是模块化的过程决定的,以及“在线”实验室测量是否与现实世界中元认知的“离线”自我报告测量相关。在视觉感知和情景记忆两个领域的任务配对中,我们逐次收集了信心评分;而在注意到行动的领域中,一个任务获得了逐次的信心评分,另一个任务则获得了依赖于信号的错误意识的测量。我们使用相关和潜在变量方法的组合来评估跨范式和领域的元认知效率得分之间的关系。结果表明存在混合的领域一般性(统一)和领域特殊性(多样化)成分。具体来说,元认知效率的贝叶斯相关估计以及领域间相关性的验证性因素分析表明,关于知觉判断的元认知大多是领域特异性的,而注意到行动和记忆领域的元认知之间的相互关系则暗示了部分专门的元认知子系统的共存。值得注意的是,离线的元认知测量代表了在线的元认知偏差,而不是在线的元认知效率,这强调了自我报告问卷在元认知研究中是否提供有用的代理存在普遍的怀疑,因为它们似乎容易受到潜在不可靠的内省和记忆扭曲的影响。总的来说,我们的结果表明,基于任务的元认知既有普遍性的部分,也有专门化的部分。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。