Metacognitive Information Theory

The capacity that subjects have to rate confidence in their choices is a form of metacognition, and can be assessed according to bias, sensitivity and efficiency. Rich networks of domain-specific and domain-general regions of the brain are involved in the rating, and are associated with its quality...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOpen mind (Cambridge, Mass.) Vol. 7; pp. 392 - 411
Main Author Dayan, Peter
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published One Broadway, 12th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA MIT Press 21.07.2023
MIT Press Journals, The
The MIT Press
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The capacity that subjects have to rate confidence in their choices is a form of metacognition, and can be assessed according to bias, sensitivity and efficiency. Rich networks of domain-specific and domain-general regions of the brain are involved in the rating, and are associated with its quality and its use for regulating the processes of thinking and acting. Sensitivity and efficiency are often measured by quantities called meta– ′ and the M-ratio that are based on reverse engineering the potential accuracy of the original, primary, choice that is implied by the quality of the confidence judgements. Here, we advocate a straightforward measure of sensitivity, called meta–𝓘, which assesses the mutual information between the accuracy of the subject’s choices and the confidence reports, and two normalized versions of this measure that quantify efficiency in different regimes. Unlike most other measures, meta–𝓘-based quantities increase with the number of correctly assessed bins with which confidence is reported. We illustrate meta–𝓘 on data from a perceptual decision-making task, and via a simple form of simulated second-order metacognitive observer.
Bibliography:2023
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interests.
ISSN:2470-2986
2470-2986
DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00091