Going ‘meta’: a systematic review of metacognition and functional neurological disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In functional neurological disorder (FND), there is a fundamental disconnect between an apparently intact nervous system and the individuals' ability to consistently perform motor actions, perceive sensory signals and/or access effective cognition. Metacognition, the capacity to self-evaluate cognitive performance, appears highly relevant to FND pathophysiology. Poor metacognition is a potential mechanism via which abnormal models of self and the state of the world could arise and persist unchecked. There is therefore a justified enthusiasm that studies of metacognition may give substance to FND's intangible nature. However, many assume an impairment in metacognition even though experimental studies are still in their infancy. This systematic review provides an analytical checkpoint of the evidence after the first five years of experimental work. We firstly summarize current methods for testing metacognition, prerequisite knowledge that allows readers to independently evaluate the evidence. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we then screened the 21 articles on this topic and review the experimental data of the eight studies that specifically tested metacognition in subjects with FND. Questionnaire metrics used to estimate global metacognition and general confidence in FND revealed a mixed picture of low or normal confidence. Of the five studies that used performance-controlled metrics, the gold-standard to estimate local metacognition in FND, four found metacognition to be equivalent to healthy controls and one paper supported impaired metacognition. We consequently try and broaden the debate and discuss alternative headline scenarios. We review how positive studies may offer insight and debate whether null studies could represent false negatives. However, since most studies find equivalent metacognition to controls, we also discuss whether metacognition could be intact and how this could inform mechanistic models of FND and have potential clinical utility. In summary, this review highlights signal of interest within the data, exposes current limitations and flags the many open questions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".