Abstract

In humans and some other species perceptual decision-making is complemented by the ability to make confidence judgements about the certainty of sensory evidence. While both forms of decision process have been studied empirically, the precise relationship between them remains poorly understood. We performed an experiment that combined a perceptual decision-making task (identifying the category of a faint visual stimulus) with a confidence-judgement task (wagering on the accuracy of each perceptual decision). The visual stimulation paradigm required steady fixation, so we used eye-tracking to control for stray eye movements. Our data analyses revealed an unexpected and counterintuitive interaction between the steadiness of fixation (prior to and during stimulation), perceptual decision making, and post-decision wagering: greater variability in gaze direction during fixation was associated with significantly increased visual-perceptual sensitivity, but significantly decreased reliability of confidence judgements. The latter effect could not be explained by a simple change in overall confidence (i.e. a criterion artifact), but rather was tied to a change in the degree to which high wagers predicted correct decisions (i.e. the sensitivity of the confidence judgement). We found no evidence of a differential change in pupil diameter that could account for the effect and thus our results are consistent with fixational eye movements being the relevant covariate. However, we note that small changes in pupil diameter can sometimes cause artefactual fluctuations in measured gaze direction and this possibility could not be fully ruled out. In either case, our results suggest that perceptual decisions and confidence judgements can be processed independently and point toward a new avenue of research into the relationship between them.

Highlights

  • In the domain of perceptual decision making, a distinction can be drawn between two types of visually-informed decisions: “first-order,” such as the identification of a visual object or feature, PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0125278 May 8, 2015Eye-Tracking Reveals Dissociation of Perception and Meta-Cognition

  • While post-decision wagering may be subject to biases such as loss aversion [19], one can rule out criterion effects by either testing for a shift in the proportion of high wagers, or by using unbiased measures of type-2 decisions based on signal-detection theory (SDT) [1, 15]

  • With video eye-tracking equipment, because the outline of the pupil is used to infer the direction of gaze, fluctuations in gaze-direction may be confounded with small changes in pupil diameter

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the domain of perceptual decision making, a distinction can be drawn between two types of visually-informed decisions: “first-order,” such as the identification of a visual object or feature, PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0125278 May 8, 2015. Type-2 sensitivity refers to the degree to which the subject’s confidence judgements accurately estimate his probability of being correct, and this is what we are concerned with here. While post-decision wagering may be subject to biases such as loss aversion [19], one can rule out criterion effects by either testing for a shift in the proportion of high wagers, or by using unbiased measures of type-2 decisions based on signal-detection theory (SDT) [1, 15]. While type-2 sensitivity can be estimated using metrics based on signal detection theory [1, 15], these are aggregate measures and are not defined at the single-trial level, whereas the proportion of advantageous wagers (PAW) is. PAW will vary to some degree purely as a function of overall confidence, but for a constant or near-constant proportion of high wagers, advantageous wagering estimates the sensitivity of the type-2 judgement. We make use of PAW when a singletrial metric is called for, being careful to rule out effects due purely to changes in overall confidence

Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
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