» Articles » PMID: 35304428

Partially Overlapping Neural Correlates of Metacognitive Monitoring and Metacognitive Control

Overview
Journal J Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2022 Mar 19
PMID 35304428
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Metacognition describes the process of monitoring one's own mental states, often for the purpose of cognitive control. Previous research has investigated how metacognitive signals are generated (metacognitive monitoring), for example, when people (both female/male) judge their confidence in their decisions and memories. Research has also investigated how metacognitive signals are used to influence behavior (metacognitive control), for example, setting a reminder (i.e., cognitive offloading) for something you are not confident you will remember. However, the mapping between metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control needs further study on a neural level. We used fMRI to investigate a delayed-intentions task with a reminder element, allowing human participants to use their metacognitive insight to engage metacognitive control. Using multivariate pattern analysis, we found that we could separately decode both monitoring and control, and, to a lesser extent, cross-classify between them. Therefore, brain patterns associated with monitoring and control are partially, but not fully, overlapping. Models of metacognition commonly distinguish between monitoring (how metacognition is formed) and control (how metacognition is used for behavioral regulation). Research into these facets of metacognition has often happened in isolation. Here, we provide a study which directly investigates the mapping between metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control at a neural level. We applied multivariate pattern analysis to fMRI data from a novel task in which participants separately rated their confidence (metacognitive monitoring) and how much they would like to use a reminder (metacognitive control). We find support for the notion that the two aspects of metacognition overlap partially but not fully. We argue that future research should focus on how different metacognitive signals are selected for control.

Citing Articles

Cost avoidance underlies decisions to use prospective memory reminders.

Ball B, Peper P Mem Cognit. 2025; .

PMID: 39930086 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-025-01683-3.


High Impostors Are More Hesitant to Ask for Help.

Chen S, Son L Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(9).

PMID: 39336025 PMC: 11429303. DOI: 10.3390/bs14090810.


Relation of life sciences students' metacognitive monitoring to neural activity during biology error detection.

Behrendt M, Clark C, Elliott M, Dauer J NPJ Sci Learn. 2024; 9(1):16.

PMID: 38438416 PMC: 10912288. DOI: 10.1038/s41539-024-00231-z.


Boundary updating as a source of history effect on decision uncertainty.

Lee H, Lee S iScience. 2023; 26(11):108314.

PMID: 38026228 PMC: 10665832. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108314.


Metacognitive Differences in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Cognition: A Cross-Sectional Study Employing Online Measures.

Bampa G, Tsolaki M, Moraitou D, Metallidou P, Masoura E, Mintziviri M J Intell. 2023; 11(9).

PMID: 37754914 PMC: 10532837. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence11090184.


References
1.
Koriat A, Maayan H, Nussinson R . The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006; 135(1):36-69. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36. View

2.
Fernandez-Duque D, BAIRD J, Posner M . Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Conscious Cogn. 2000; 9(2 Pt 1):288-307. DOI: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0447. View

3.
Koriat A . How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychol Rev. 1993; 100(4):609-39. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.609. View

4.
Fleur D, Bredeweg B, van den Bos W . Metacognition: ideas and insights from neuro- and educational sciences. NPJ Sci Learn. 2021; 6(1):13. PMC: 8187395. DOI: 10.1038/s41539-021-00089-5. View

5.
Boldt A, Gilbert S . Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2019; 4(1):45. PMC: 6889107. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-019-0195-y. View