Impaired metacognition and reduced neural signals of decision confidence in adults with traumatic brain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Metacognition reflects our capacity to monitor or evaluate other cognitive states as they unfold during task performance, for example, our level of confidence in the veracity of a memory. Impaired metacognition is seen in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and substantially impacts their ability to manage functional difficulties during recovery. Recent evidence suggests that metacognitive representations reflect domain-specific processes (e.g., memory vs. perception) acting jointly with generic confidence signals mediated by widespread frontoparietal networks. The impact of neurological insult on metacognitive processes across different cognitive domains following TBI remains unknown. METHOD: = 28). During the metacognitive tasks, continuous electroencephalography was recorded, and event-related potentials (ERP) were analyzed. RESULTS: First, we observed a deficit in metacognitive efficiency across both tasks suggesting that patients show a loss of perceptual and memorial evidence available for confidence judgments despite equivalent accuracy levels to controls. Second, a late positive-going ERP waveform (500-700 ms) was greater in amplitude for high versus low-confidence judgements for controls across both task domains. By contrast, in patients with TBI, the same ERP waveform did not vary by confidence level suggesting a deficient or attenuated neural marker of decision confidence postinjury. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that diffuse damage to putative frontoparietal regions in patients disrupts domain-general metacognitive accuracy and electrophysiological signals that accumulate evidence of decision confidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".