Optimal confidence for unaware visuomotor deviations
Pereira, M.; Skiba, R.; Cojan, Y.; Vuilleumier, P.; Begue, I.
Show abstract
Numerous studies have shown that humans can successfully correct deviations to ongoing movements without being aware of them, suggesting limited conscious monitoring of visuomotor performance. Here, we ask whether such limited monitoring impairs the capacity to judiciously place confidence ratings to reflect decision accuracy (metacognitive sensitivity). To this end, we recorded functional magnetic resonance imaging data while thirty-one participants reported visuomotor cursor deviations and rated their confidence retrospectively. We show that participants use a summary statistic of the unfolding visual feedback (the maximum cursor error) to detect deviations but that this information alone is insufficient to explain detection performance. The same summary statistics is used by participants to optimally adjust their confidence ratings, even for unaware deviations. At the neural level, activity in the ventral striatum tracked high confidence, whereas a broad network including the anterior prefrontal cortex encoded cursor error but not confidence, shedding new light on a role of the anterior prefrontal cortex for action monitoring rather than confidence. Together, our results challenge the notion of limited action monitoring and uncover a new mechanism by which humans optimally monitor their movements as they unfold, even when unaware of ongoing deviations.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Contributions of distinct attention mechanisms to saccadic choices in a gamified, dynamic environment 96%
- Did we get sensorimotor adaptation wrong? Implicit adaptation as direct policy updating rather than forward-model-based learning 96%
- Motor sequence learning involves better prediction of the next action andoptimization of movement trajectories 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.