Abstract

Detection failures in perceptual tasks can result from different causes: sometimes we may fail to see something because perceptual information is noisy or degraded, and sometimes we may fail to see something due to the limited capacity of attention. Previous work indicates that metacognitive capacities for detection failures may differ depending on the specific stimulus visibility manipulation employed. In this investigation, we measured metacognition while matching performance in two visibility manipulations: phase-scrambling and the attentional blink. As in previous work, metacognitive asymmetries emerged: despite matched type 1 performance, metacognitive ability (measured by area under the ROC curve) for reporting stimulus absence was higher in the attentional blink condition, which was mainly driven by metacognitive ability in correct rejection trials. We performed Signal Detection Theoretic (SDT) modeling of the results, showing that differences in metacognition under equal type I performance can be explained when the variance of the signal and noise distributions are unequal. Specifically, the present study suggests that phase scrambling signal trials have a wider distribution (more variability) than attentional blink signal trials, leading to a larger area under the ROC curve for attentional blink trials where subjects reported stimulus absence. These results provide a theoretical basis for the origin of metacognitive differences on trials where subjects report stimulus absence, and may also explain previous findings where the absence of evidence during detection tasks results in lower metacognitive performance when compared to categorization.

Highlights

  • Our daily lives require that we be able to detect the presence or absence of objects in the environment

  • To evaluate whether the objective difficulty between trial types was successfully matched, we performed a pairedsamples t-test in the following manner: first, we selected the subset of trials which included a correct T1 response. (This is because in attentional blink (AB) trials, it is easier to have the T2 response correct if T1 was unattended or ignored; we aimed for consistency across trial types.) we selected the type 1 judgments from T2 responses and performed a paired-samples t-test on the percentage correct between AB and phase scrambling (PS) trials

  • We note that participants had on average 2% more T1 correct on PS trials compared to AB trials (PS: 91.84% correct, SD = 8.0%; AB: 89.69% correct, SD = 9.3%; t(34) = -3.67, p < .001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Our daily lives require that we be able to detect the presence or absence of objects in the environment. They demonstrated that target misses were not distinguishable from actual target absence for contrast reduction, backward masking, and flash suppression, but were distinguishable in the dual task, attentional blink, and spatial uncertainty paradigms. These results support the idea that metacognitive judgments may not index all detection failures but much is still unknown about the relationship between metacognition and these visibility manipulations

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call