Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Nat Commun. 2022 Jul 21;13(1):4208. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31727-0.
Humans differ in their capability to judge choice accuracy via confidence judgments. Popular signal detection theoretic measures of metacognition, such as M-ratio, do not consider the dynamics of decision making. This can be problematic if response caution is shifted to alter the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Such shifts could induce unaccounted-for sources of variation in the assessment of metacognition. Instead, evidence accumulation frameworks consider decision making, including the computation of confidence, as a dynamic process unfolding over time. Using simulations, we show a relation between response caution and M-ratio. We then show the same pattern in human participants explicitly instructed to focus on speed or accuracy. Finally, this association between M-ratio and response caution is also present across four datasets without any reference towards speed. In contrast, when data are analyzed with a dynamic measure of metacognition, v-ratio, there is no effect of speed-accuracy tradeoff.
人类在通过信心判断来判断选择准确性的能力上存在差异。元认知的流行信号检测理论测量方法,如 M 比,不考虑决策的动态。如果反应谨慎被转移以改变速度和准确性之间的权衡,这可能会产生元认知评估中未被考虑的变异源。相反,证据积累框架将决策(包括置信度的计算)视为随时间展开的动态过程。通过模拟,我们展示了反应谨慎与 M 比之间的关系。然后,我们在明确指示专注于速度或准确性的人类参与者中显示了相同的模式。最后,即使没有参考速度,这种 M 比与反应谨慎之间的关联也存在于四个没有数据集中。相比之下,当使用元认知的动态测量方法 v-ratio 分析数据时,没有速度-准确性权衡的影响。