Cross-Domain Association in Metacognitive Efficiency Depends on First-Order Task Types

An important yet unresolved question is whether or not metacognition consists of domain-general or domain-specific mechanisms. While most studies on this topic suggest a dissociation between metacognitive abilities at the neural level, there are inconsistent reports at the behavioral level. Specifically, while McCurdy et al. (2013) found a positive correlation between metacognitive efficiency for visual perception and memory, such correlation was not observed in Baird et al. (2013). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the former included two-alternative-forced choice (2AFC) judgments in both their visual and memory tasks, whereas the latter used 2AFC for one task and yes/no (YN) judgments for the other. To test the effect of task on cross-domain association in metacognitive efficiency, we conducted two online experiments to mirror McCurdy et al. (2013) and Baird et al. (2013) with considerable statistical power (n = 100), and replicated the main findings of both studies. The results suggest that the use of task could affect cross-domain association in metacognitive efficiency. In the third experiment with the same sample size, we used YN judgments for both tasks and did not find a significant cross-domain correlation in metacognitive efficiency. This suggests that the cross-domain correlation found in McCurdy et al. (2013) was not simply due to the same task being used for both domains, and the absence of cross-domain correlation in Baird et al. (2013) might be due to the use of YN judgments. Our results highlight the importance of avoiding confusion between 2AFC and YN judgments in behavioral tasks for metacognitive research, which is a common problem in many behavioral studies.

[1]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[2]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  CUNY Academic , 2016 .

[3]  Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski,et al.  Medial and Lateral Networks in Anterior Prefrontal Cortex Support Metacognitive Ability for Memory and Perception , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  V. Walsh,et al.  Subjective discriminability of invisibility: A framework for distinguishing perceptual and attentional failures of awareness , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

[5]  R. Passingham,et al.  Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness , 2010, Cognitive neuroscience.

[6]  David J. Schwartzman,et al.  Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal or parietal cortex does not impair metacognitive visual awareness , 2016, bioRxiv.

[7]  B. Postle,et al.  Correlated individual differences suggest a common mechanism underlying metacognition in visual perception and visual short-term memory , 2017, bioRxiv.

[8]  Hakwan Lau,et al.  Domain-General and Domain-Specific Patterns of Activity Supporting Metacognition in Human Prefrontal Cortex , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  A. Hossain,et al.  A comparative study on detection of influential observations in linear regression , 1991 .

[10]  Philipp Kanske,et al.  Substrates of metacognition on perception and metacognition on higher‐order cognition relate to different subsystems of the mentalizing network , 2016, Human brain mapping.

[11]  P. Dockree,et al.  Domain-specific and domain-general processes underlying metacognitive judgments , 2017, Consciousness and Cognition.

[12]  Hakwan Lau,et al.  Signal Detection Theory Analysis of Type 1 and Type 2 Data: Meta-d′, Response-Specific Meta-d′, and the Unequal Variance SDT Model , 2014 .

[13]  Olaf Blanke,et al.  Behavioral, Modeling, and Electrophysiological Evidence for Supramodality in Human Metacognition , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Tony Ro,et al.  Who’s afraid of response bias? , 2016, Neuroscience of consciousness.

[15]  Jonathan Smallwood,et al.  Regional White Matter Variation Associated with Domain-specific Metacognitive Accuracy , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Floris P. de Lange,et al.  Anatomical Coupling between Distinct Metacognitive Systems for Memory and Visual Perception , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[17]  H. Lau,et al.  How to measure metacognition , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[18]  S. Fleming,et al.  Domain-specific impairment in metacognitive accuracy following anterior prefrontal lesions , 2014, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[19]  M. N. Ahmadabadi,et al.  Metacognitive Deficiency in a Perceptual but Not a Memory Task in Methadone Maintenance Patients , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[20]  H. Lau,et al.  A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings , 2012, Consciousness and Cognition.

[21]  R. Fisher FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUES OF THE CORRELATION COEFFIENTS IN SAMPLES FROM AN INDEFINITELY LARGE POPU;ATION , 1915 .

[22]  H. Lau,et al.  On a distinction between detection and discrimination: metacognitive advantage for signal over noise , 2011 .

[23]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[24]  Hugo D. Critchley,et al.  Interoceptive dimensions across cardiac and respiratory axes , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[26]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk , 2012, Political Analysis.