“Play it Again”: a new method for testing metacognition in animals
- 496 Downloads
Putative metacognition data in animals may be explained by non-metacognition models (e.g., stimulus generalization). The primary objective of the present study was to develop a new method for testing metacognition in animals that may yield data that can be explained by metacognition but not by non-metacognition models. Next, we used the new method with rats. Rats were first presented with a brief noise duration which they would subsequently classify as short or long. Rats were sometimes forced to take an immediate duration test, forced to repeat the same duration, or had the choice to take the test or repeat the duration. Metacognition, but not an alternative non-metacognition model, predicts that accuracy on difficult durations is higher when subjects are forced to repeat the stimulus compared to trials in which the subject chose to repeat the stimulus, a pattern observed in our data. Simulation of a non-metacognition model suggests that this part of the data from rats is consistent with metacognition, but other aspects of the data are not consistent with metacognition. The current results call into question previous findings suggesting that rats have metacognitive abilities. Although a mixed pattern of data does not support metacognition in rats, we believe the introduction of the method may be valuable for testing with other species to help evaluate the comparative case for metacognition.
KeywordsMetacognition Metacognitive control Simulations Rats
We thank Tony Snodgrass for help with programing the simulations. We thank the reviewers of a previous version of the manuscript for insightful criticism. This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grants R01MH64799 and R01MH080052 (to J.D.C).
Conflict of interest
The experiments complied with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Basile BM, Hampton RR, Suomi SJ, Murray EA (2009) An assessment of memory awareness in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 12:1169–1180Google Scholar
- Crystal JD, Foote AL (2009) Metacognition in animals. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 4:1–16Google Scholar
- Jozefowiez J, Cerutti DT, Staddon JER (2009a) The behavioral economics of choice and interval timing. Psychol Rev 116:519–539Google Scholar
- Jozefowiez J, Staddon JER, Cerutti DT. (2009b) Metacognition in animals: how do we know that they know? Comp Cogn Behav Rev 4:29–39Google Scholar
- Metcalfe J, Kober H (2005) Self-reflective consciousness and the projectable self. In: Terrace HS, Metcalfe J (eds) The missing link in cognition: origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 57–83Google Scholar
- Smith JD (2005) Studies of uncertainty monitoring and metacognition in animals and humans. In: Terrace HS, Metcalfe J (eds) The missing link in cognition: origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 242–271Google Scholar
- Son LK, Kornell N (2005) Metaconfidence judgments in rhesus macaques: explicit versus implicit mechanisms. In: Terrace HS, Metcalfe J (eds) The missing link in cognition: origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 296–320Google Scholar