Selective attention and subjective confidence calibration

Confidence judgments interfere with perceptual decision making

Determining one's confidence in a decision is a vital part of decision-making. Traditionally, psychological experiments have assessed a person's confidence by eliciting confidence judgments. The notion that such judgments can be elicited without impacting the accuracy of the decision has recently been challenged by several studies which have shown reactivity effects-either an increase or decrease in decision accuracy when confidence judgments are elicited. Evidence for the direction of reactivity effects has, however, been decidedly mixed. Here, we report three studies designed to specifically make reactivity effects more prominent by eliciting confidence judgment contemporaneously with perceptual decisions. We show that confidence judgments elicited contemporaneously produce an impairment in decision accuracy, this suggests that confidence judgments may rely on a partially distinct set of cues/evidence than the primary perceptual decision and, additionally, challenges the continued use of confidence ratings as an unobtrusive measure of metacognition.

Persuasive Features of Scientific Explanations: Explanatory Schemata of Physical and Psychosocial Phenomena

Explanations are central to understanding the causal relationships between entities within the environment. Instead of examining basic heuristics and schemata that inform the acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations, recent studies have predominantly examined complex explanatory models. In the present study, we examined which essential features of explanatory schemata can account for phenomena that are attributed to domain-specific knowledge. In two experiments, participants judged the validity of logical syllogisms and reported confidence in their response. In addition to validity of the explanations, we manipulated whether scientists or people explained an animate or inanimate phenomenon using mechanistic (e.g., force, cause) or intentional explanatory terms (e.g., believes, wants). Results indicate that intentional explanations were generally considered to be less valid than mechanistic explanations and that 'scientists' were relatively more reliable sources of information of inanimate phenomena whereas 'people' were relatively more reliable sources of information of animate phenomena. Moreover, after controlling for participants' performance, we found that they expressed greater overconfidence for valid intentional and invalid mechanistic explanations suggesting that the effect of belief-bias is greater in these conditions.

Temporal attention causes systematic biases in visual confidence

Temporal attention enhances the perceptual representation of a stimulus at a particular point in time. The number of possible attentional episodes in a given period is limited, but whether observers’ confidence reflects such limitations is still unclear. To investigate this issue, we adapted an “Attentional Blink” paradigm, presenting observers with a rapid visual stream of letters containing two targets cued for subsequent perceptual reports and confidence judgments. We found three main results. First, when two targets fell within the same attentional episode, the second target underwent a strong under-confidence bias. In other words, confidence neglected that a single attentional episode can benefit to both targets. Second, despite this initial bias, confidence was strongly correlated with response probability. Third, as confidence was yoked to the evidence used in perceptual reports, it remains blind to delays in response selection for the second target. Notably, the second target was often mistaken with a later item associated with higher confidence. These results suggest that confidence does not perfectly evaluate the limits of temporal attention in challenging situations.

Humans incorporate attention-dependent uncertainty into perceptual decisions and confidence

Perceptual decisions are better when they take uncertainty into account. Uncertainty arises not only from the properties of sensory input but also from cognitive sources, such as different levels of attention. However, it is unknown whether humans appropriately adjust for such cognitive sources of uncertainty during perceptual decision-making. Here we show that, in a task in which uncertainty is relevant for performance, human categorization and confidence decisions take into account uncertainty related to attention. We manipulated uncertainty in an orientation categorization task from trial to trial using only an attentional cue. The categorization task was designed to disambiguate decision rules that did or did not depend on attention. Using formal model comparison to evaluate decision behavior, we found that category and confidence decision boundaries shifted as a function of attention in an approximately Bayesian fashion. This means that the observer's attentional state on each trial contributed probabilistically to the decision computation. This responsiveness of an observer's decisions to attention-dependent uncertainty should improve perceptual decisions in natural vision, in which attention is unevenly distributed across a scene.

Subjective awareness of ultrasound expertise development: individual experience as a determinant of overconfidence

Medical decision-making requires years of experience in order to develop an adequate level of competence to successfully engage in safe practice. While diagnostic and technical skills are essential, an awareness of the extent and limits of our own knowledge and skills is critical. The present study examines clinicians' subjective awareness in a diagnostic cardiac ultrasound task. Clinicians answered diagnostic and treatment related questions for a range of pathologies. Following these questions, clinicians indicated their level of confidence in their response. A comparison of response accuracy and confidence revealed that clinicians were generally overconfident in their responses. Critically, we observed that a clinician's overconfidence was negatively correlated with prior experience: clinicians that had more prior experience expressed less overconfidence in their performance such that some clinicians were in fact underconfident. We discuss the implications for training in medical education and decision-making.