Functional roles of metacognition Marion Rouault Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL marion.rouault@gmail.com metacoglab.org
Outline of the course 1. Introduction to metacognition: theory and measurement 2. Origins of metacognition in evolution and development 3. Neural architecture of metacognition 4. Functional roles of metacognition in behavioural control
Reminder • Most perceptions, memories and choices are accompanied by subjective estimates of their reliability i.e. confidence estimates Kepecs et al 2008; Kiani & Shadlen 2009
• Metacognition refers to our ability to monitor and evaluate our own cognitive processes Fleming & Dolan 2012; Gehring et al 1993 subjective confidence objective performance
Closing the loop: reciprocal interactions between decision-making and metacognition Decision performance - Evidence - Accuracy - ReacAon Ames - Motor hesitaAon - … Maniscalco and Lau, 2012 QuesAenne et al., 2017 Kiani et al., 2014 Pouget et al., 2016
Confidence
- behavioural control e.g. setting the switches Donoso et al., 2014 Boureau et al., 2015
- self-efficacy, goals one chooses to pursue Decision-making
Bandura, 1984 Elliott et al., 2003 Wells, 2012
Closing the loop: reciprocal interactions between decision-making and metacognition Decision performance - Evidence - Accuracy - ReacAon Ames - Motor hesitaAon - … Maniscalco and Lau, 2012 QuesAenne et al., 2017 Kiani et al., 2014 Pouget et al., 2016
Confidence
- behavioural control e.g. setting the switches Donoso et al., 2014 Boureau et al., 2015
- self-efficacy, goals one chooses to pursue Decision-making
Bandura., 1984 Elliott et al., 2003 Wells, 2012
Functional roles of metacognition Outline of the course LOCAL
• Control of subsequent decision-making - Revise immediate decisions - Influence decisions over longer time-scales
• Role of metacognition in learning across domains • Confidence generalisation and transfer • Metacognition: a trait characteristic?
GLOBAL
Control of subsequent decision-making
Control of subsequent decision-making Rat orbitofrontal cortex: ‘confidence’-like paUern
⇒ Adapt waiAng Ame according to confidence esAmate in obtaining reward ⇒ Before iniAaAng a new trial Kepecs et al., 2008
Changes of mind
• Hand movement trajectory betrayed changes of mind of some trials • Evidence accumulaAon goes on a[er iniAal decision is made • Possibility for self-correcAon Resulaj et al., 2009
Changes of mind Dri[-diusion model framework Post-decision evidence accumula1on van den Berg et al., 2016 See also: Bronfman et al., 2015 Murphy et al., 2015 Changes of mind in the value domain: Folke et al., 2016
Metacognition computations & adaptive behavior • Task with two levels of uncertainty (equivalent to risk and ambiguity in economics) Meyniel et al., 2015 • Subjects had to detect jumps in abstract sequences
Metacognition computations & adaptive behavior • Subjects‘ behaviour displays features of the ideal observer model • CorrelaAon between esAmate of probability of the next sAmuli by the model and by subject • Similarly for confidence esAmate about such probability
Meyniel et al., 2015
Confidence guiding behaviour over longer time-scales
Choice confidence: disambiguating negative feedback Initial diagnosis
Confidence in treatment High conf Reconsider diagnostic
Low conf Persist
‘Global’ confidence to set the decision strategy and guide future behavior
Switching over longer time-scales InteracAons across a hierarchy of decision processes in a dynamically changing environment
Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales InteracAons across a hierarchy of decision processes in a dynamically changing environment
Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales
Correct direction choice + correct environment choice"
Either one or both incorrect"
Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales Unpredictable reversals for the correct environment
Decision strategy: PERSIST with current environment or SWITCH Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales
Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales
Critical factors driving switch: feedback and expected direction choice accuracy Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales
• Expected accuracy i.e. ‘global confidence’ is the key variable determining switching • Different combinations of motion strength and duration that produced the same expected accuracy also produced a similar probability of switching Purcell and Kiani, 2016
Switching over longer time-scales • Effects of expected accuracy = confidence over Ame on switching, over and above effects of feedback • Many real-life decisions lack immediate feedback • Could confidence act as a signal for guiding choices in the absence of feedback?
Learning about self-performance in the absence of feedback • Learning from explicit feedback has been extensively studied
Schultz et al. 1997; SuUon and Barto 1998; Oaksford and Chater 2009, less
is
• Behavioral and computaAonal mechanisms underlying metacogniAve learning in the absence of feedback? • Hypothesis: confidence could act as a learning signal
Rouault, Dayan and Fleming (in prep)
Task cue"
Rouault, Dayan and Fleming (in prep)
Which box has more dots?"
Correct"
…"
Which game should we use to calculate your bonus?!
Which game should we use to calculate your bonus?!
…"
2 dependent variables indexing confidence: -  Task choice -  Task ability ratings
Which task should we use to calculate your bonus?!
2 by 2 factorial design within-subject Learning block" 2 types of trials interleaved"
Test block" "
Task ability ratings"
Task choice: Prospective metacognitive evaluation
Feedback" No Feedback" Easy" Difficult"
1
24
30 trials
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1
Task ability ratings
Mean performance
1
Task choice frequency
Dissociation between objective and perceived ability
0.8 0.6
FB easy FB diff NO FB easy NO FB diff
0.4 0.2 0
In the absence of feedback, task is chosen less often, whereas objective performance is equally good
Learning dynamics Learning blocks 2 types of trials interleaved 6 pairings 5 possible lengths
Which task? Which game should we use to calculate your bonus?
Retrospective metacognitive evaluation
Feedback" No Feedback" Easy" Difficult"
1
nb of trials
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.5 Task choice frequency
Mean performance in learning blocks
Performance perceived worse without feedback
0.4
FB easy FB diff NO FB easy NO FB diff
0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Subjects trade-off subjecAve ability against gekng external feedback (replicaAon)
Fluctuations in local performance influence self-performance estimates B
1
1
1
0.5 1
0.5
0.5
0.9 0
0
0
1 0.8
1
1
0.5 0.7
0.5
0.5
FB easy FB diff NO FB easy NO FB diff
0.6 0
S A L
0
S A L
0
0.5 Task choice frequency
number of trials
Mean performance in learning blocks
Task choice frequency
arning blocks
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 S A L
S: blocks with Small difference in performance between tasks 0.5 0 A: All blocks together L: blocks with Large difference in performance between tasks
FB easy FB diff NO FB easy NO FB diff
Learning about self-performance in the absence of feedback Feedback Confidence rating Easy
0.7 Diff.
Easy
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
***
Task choice frequency
D Confidence level
C
2.5
0.8
0.6
Contribution to task cho
1
2
*** 1.5 1
~
0.5 0
baseline accDiff
F
0.5
0
S
A
L
S: Small difference in confidence between tasks A: All blocks together L: Large difference in confidence between tasks
3
Metacognitive efficiency
Experiment 3
E
Correct Error
regression coefficient (a. u.)
B Confidence level
A
=0.31 p=0.07
2 1 0
0
rtDiff co
Learning about self-performance in the absence of feedback Feedback Confidence rating Easy
0.7 Diff.
Easy
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
***
Task choice frequency
D Confidence level
C
2.5
0.8
0.6
Contribution to task cho
1
2
*** 1.5 1
~
0.5 0
baseline accDiff
F
0.5
0
S
A
L
S: Small difference in confidence between tasks A: All blocks together L: Large difference in confidence between tasks
3
Metacognitive efficiency
Experiment 3
E
Correct Error
regression coefficient (a. u.)
B Confidence level
A
=0.31 p=0.07
2 1 0
0
rtDiff co
Learning about self-performance in the absence of feedback
y
2.5
0.8 0.7 0.6
Diff.
Easy
D Task choice frequency
Contribution to task choice
1
***
2
*** 1.5 1
~
0.5 0
baseline accDiff
F
rtDiff confDiff
3 =0.31 Local fluctuaAons in confidence explained variance in task choice p=0.07 over and above fluctuaAons in accuracy or reacAon Ames 2
0.5
0
S
A
L
S: Small difference in confidence between tasks A: All blocks together L: Large difference in confidence between tasks
tacognitive efficiency
e rating
E
Correct Error
regression coefficient (a. u.)
Confidence level
B
1 0
Learning about self-performance in the absence of feedback • Subjects trade-off gekng external feedback against internal esAmates of self-performance • Internal confidence as a mediaAng factor when not receiving external feedback • Subjects are able to aggregate confidence over Ame to construct global esAmates about self-performance
Role of metacognition in learning across domains
Learning in the absence of feedback
Hainguerlot et al., 2018
Learning in the absence of feedback
Hainguerlot et al., 2018
Metacognition computations & adaptive behavior
• Subjects learn cues predicAng informaAon about the sAmulus • On some trials, no sAmulus: subjects had to give a prospecAve confidence judgement about the likelihood that they would have goUen it correct Schiffer, Boldt et al., OSF
Metacognition computations & adaptive behavior • ParAcipants used cues to predict selfperformance esAmates in the absence of sAmulus • One key purpose of confidence: preparing future encounters of the task Schiffer, Boldt et al., OSF
In the memory domain: confidence mediating offloading behavior
• Sekng reminders might depend on confidence for further recall • Strategy choices for offloading intenAons, especially when accuracy is incenAvised Risko & Gilbert, 2016; Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2008
Strategy selection in arithmetic problems • ArithmeAc problems with controlled features:
26 x 42" • Strategy selecAon and/or execuAon: rounding up or down • Prospec1ve metacogniAve judgements: parAcipants unable to esAmate the ease of strategy selecAon • Retrospec1ve metacogniAve judgements: higher levels of retrospecAve confidence associated with beUer strategy selecAon on the next problem
Geurten & Lemaire, 2017; 2018 Siedlecka et al., 2016
Confidence generalisation and transfer
Confidence could act as a global prior
Rouault et al., 2018
Confidence could act as a global prior
‘Multi-cue’ models of confidence ⇒ Not only single decision evidence and RT ⇒ Partial motor contributions ⇒ Global priors about general ability Koriat and Levy-Sadot, 2001 ⇒ … QuesAenne et al., 2017 Gajdos et al., 2018 Boldt et al., 2017
Confidence: a common currency?
• Confidence raAngs are as accurate across two visual tasks de Gardelle et al., 2014
• Same result across a visual and an auditory task de Gardelle et al., 2016
Generalisation across different confidence formats
• Perceptual decision-making task • Domain-general overconfidence transcending temporal focus Fleming, Massoni, Gajdos and Vergnaud, 2016
Generalisation and transfer across tasks?
• Same parAcipants performed a visual, an auditory and a tacAle task • ‘Global’ confidence in an abstract, task-independent format? • GeneralisaAon could be adapAve or harmful Faivre et al., 2018
Confidence leak
Task A: judge colour Task B: judge symbol
Confidence in one task was influenced by confidence in the other task beyond fluctuaAons in actual task performance Rahnev et al., 2015
Confidence leak
Task A: judge colour Task B: judge symbol
Confidence in one task was influenced by confidence in the other task beyond fluctuaAons in actual task performance Rahnev et al., 2015
vmPFC: a central hub for confidence signals? Conjunction between parametric effects of desirability and confidence (desirability2) ratings
Interaction between coherence and distance
Value domain
Self-performance at ‘mini-games’ (Ame or color tasks)
Perceptual domain
Lebreton et al., 2015
Wittmann et al., 2016
Bang et al., 2018
Metacognitive ability: a trait characteristic
Metacognitive ability: a trait characteristic? • Inter-individual variability in metacogniAve evaluaAon Fleming et al., 2010, McCurdy et al., 2013, Ais et al., 2016
Individual confidence ‘profiles’
Correlation between metaperception and metamemory
Metacognitive ability: a trait characteristic? DistorAons in self-evaluaAon in many psychiatric disorders Silverstone and Salsali, 2003; Stephan et al., 2009; Orth and Robbins, 2013
underconfidence
overconfidence
Metacognitive ability: a trait characteristic?
N=1000 participants"
Perceptual decision-making task
Self-reported symptom questionnaires
Rouault, Seow, Gillan and Fleming (2018)"
Perceptual decision-making task QUANTIFY
+ Evidence level = dots difference
Fixation 1000 ms
- Decision process Accuracy (Drift-diffusion model)
Stimuli 300 ms
- Metacognition
Choice
Rate your confidence:
Response 500 ms
Fleming et al., 2014 Gilbert et al., 2015
certainly wrong
certainly correct
⇒ Confidence level (bias) ⇒ Metacognitive efficiency
Confidence level and metacognitive efficiency B
Metacognitive bias high
low Error Correct
omain-specific low
Metacognitive sensitivity high
low
high
low
high
Confidence rating
Fleming and Lau, 2014
Transdiagnostic dimensions cutting across standard categories Schizotypy
Trait Anxiety
Depression
easily confused if too much happens at the same time
feel like a failure
feel down-hearted and blue
hard to make decisions
feel that difficulties are piling up so that cannot be overcome
difficulty to make decisions
feels complicated to make decisions
mind not as clear as used to be
‌
not anymore enjoy things I used to do
very few things enjoyed doing feel like doing the opposite of what other people suggest even though knowing they are right? thought to be special, almost magical powers? ‌
‌
Transdiagnostic dimensions cutting across standard categories Schizotypy
Trait Anxiety
Depression
easily confused if too much happens at the same time
feel like a failure
feel down-hearted and blue
hard to make decisions
feel that difficulties are piling up so that cannot be overcome
difficulty to make decisions
feels complicated to make decisions
mind not as clear as used to be
‌
not anymore enjoy things I used to do
very few things enjoyed doing feel like doing the opposite of what other people suggest even though knowing they are right? thought to be special, almost magical powers? ‌
‌
Transdiagnostic dimensions cutting across standard categories Schizotypy
Trait Anxiety
Depression
Transdiagnostic dimensions cutting across standard categories Schizotypy
Trait Anxiety
Depression
3 latent transdiagnostic symptom dimensions:
Anxious/" Depression"
Compulsive Behavior and Intrusive Thought"
Social Withdrawal"
Metacognition and symptom dimensions
Decision
Metacognition
*** *
*** Accuracy
*
Confidence Metacognitive level sensitivity
Controlled for age, IQ, gender" *p<.05 uncorr, ***p<.001, corrected for multiple comparisons"
Metacognition and symptom dimensions
Decision
Metacognition
*** *
*** Accuracy
*
Confidence Metacognitive level sensitivity
Controlled for age, IQ, gender" *p<.05 uncorr, ***p<.001, corrected for multiple comparisons"
Self-efficacy • Belief or set of beliefs that an individual holds about his/her own capacities • Strong influence on subjective ability to exert control over one’s own motivation, behaviour and social environment • Sense of mastery • Ability to overcome challenges
Bandura, 1977; 1994
Self-esteem • Related but different from self-efficacy • Different from narcissism or overconfidence • Applies to many areas: personal, professional, social • Complicated evaluation of the benefits of high self-esteem: reciprocal influence of objective performance • Potential for metacognitive beliefs in the clinics is enormous, especially motivational disorders such as apathy Rosenberg, 1965; Wells, 2012
Conclusions • Instantaneous confidence estimates can be used to revise immediate decisions, to decide to collect more evidence, to switch environments • Local confidence can be integrated over longer time-scales to form ‘global’ self-performance estimates • Confidence can be used to control learning prospectively and to influence the learning process: multiple cues contribute to confidence • Some evidence that confidence may generalise across tasks, even more so in similar cognitive domains • Metacognitive profile could constitute an individual characteristic, transcending cognitive domains
Understanding the functional roles of metacognition => modifying beliefs about self-ability • Potential cognitive target for treatment • Modifying self-beliefs building blocks using neurofeedback:
Cortese et al., 2016
Thank you for your attention! More references: • Fleming SM (2014) The Power of Reflection Scientific American MIND • Dunlosky & Tauber (2015) A brief history of metamemory research and handbook overview. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory • Smith JD (2009) The study of animal metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences • Goupil & Kouider (2016) Behavioural and neural indices of metacognitive sensitivity in preverbal infants Current Biology • Fleming & Dolan (2014) The neural basis of metacognitive ability. In S.M. Fleming & C.D. Frith (Edts) The Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition • Rouault, Seow, Gillan & Fleming (2018) Psychiatric symptom dimensions are associated with dissociable shifts in metacognition but not task performance. Biological Psychiatry