Metacognition and Confidence in Value-Based Choice
Basic psychophysics tells us that decisions are rarely perfect: even with identical stimuli choice accuracy fluctuates and errors are often made. Metacognition allows appraisal of this uncertainty and correction of errors. For more complex value-based choices, however, metacognitive processes are poorly understood. In particular, how subjective confidence and valuation of choice options interact at the level of brain and behaviour is unknown. In this chapter, we summarise and discuss the results of a study designed to investigate this relationship. Subjects were asked to choose between pairs of snack items and subsequently provide a confidence rating in their choice. As predicted by a computational model of the decision process, confidence reflected the evolution of a decision variable over time, explaining the observed relation between confidence, value, accuracy and reaction time (RT). Furthermore, fMRI signal in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) reflected both value comparison and confidence in the value comparison process. In contrast, individuals’ metacognitive ability was predicted by a measure of functional connectivity between vmPFC and rostrolateral prefrontal cortex (rlPFC), a region that responded to changes in confidence but was not involved in representing the values used to guide choice. These results provide a novel link between noise in value comparison and metacognitive awareness of choice, extending the study of metacognition to value-based decision-making.
KeywordsConfidence Rating Subjective Confidence Comparison Process Race Model Decision Confidence
The research reviewed in this chapter was supported by the Wellcome Trust. SMF is supported by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship (WT096185). BDM is supported by a UCL early career fellowship.
- 7.Daw N (2011) Trial-by-trial data analysis using computational models. In: Delgado MR, Phelps EA, Robbins TW (eds) Decision making, affect, and learning: Attention and performance XXIII. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 33.McFadden D (1980) Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J Bus pp S13–S29Google Scholar
- 34.Milosavljevic M et al (2010) The drift diffusion model can account for value-based choice response times under high and low time pressure. Judgement Decis Making 5:437–449Google Scholar
- 36.Nelson TO, Narens L (1990) Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychol Learn Motiv 26, 125–322Google Scholar
- 51.Vickers D (1979) Decision processes in visual perception. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 52.Wang S et al (2012) The role of risk aversion in non-conscious decision making. Frontiers Psychol 3Google Scholar
- 54.Zylberberg A, Barttfeld P, Sigman M (2012) The construction of confidence in a perceptual decision. Frontiers Integr Neurosci 6Google Scholar