Partially overlapping neural correlates of metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control

Abstract

Metacognition describes the process of monitoring one’s own mental states, often for the purpose of cognitive control. Previous research has investigated how metacognitive signals are generated (metacognitive monitoring), for example when people judge their confidence in their decisions and memories. Research has also investigated how these metacognitive signals are used to influence behavior (metacognitive control), for example setting a reminder (i.e. cognitive offloading) for something you are not confident you will remember. However, the mapping between metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control has not been directly studied on a neural level. We used fMRI to investigate a delayed-intentions task with a reminder element, allowing participants to use their metacognitive insight to engage metacognitive control. Using multivariate pattern analysis, we found that we could separately decode both monitoring and control, and, to a lesser extent, cross-classify between them. Therefore, brain patterns associated with monitoring and control are partially, but not fully, overlapping.

Towards autonomous artificial agents with an active self: Modeling sense of control in situated action

“…This requires different levels of regulatory control, from fully automated (unaware) to fully conscious (aware), depending on the available level of expertise and routinization (Hacker, 1986). Recent research has shown that cognitive processes related to the monitoring and control of one's own mental states or cognitive processing, are used to influence behavior (Boldt and Gilbert, 2020). Importantly, increasing motor expertise not only automates a well-known action routine, but it also enables better predictions of one's own as well as somebody else's action outcomes (Stapel et al, 2016).…”

Metacognition: Ideas and Insights from Neuro- and Educational Sciences

“…In these experiments, subjects can perform actions such as set reminders, making notes and delegating tasks, 33,34 or report their desire for them. 35 Some research has investigated how metacognitive judgements can influence subsequent cognitive behaviour (i.e., a downward stream from the meta-level to the object level), but only one study so far has explored how this relationship is mapped in the brain. 35 In the other track, researchers investigate EF, also referred to as cognitive control, 30,36 which is closely related to metacognition.…”

“…35 Some research has investigated how metacognitive judgements can influence subsequent cognitive behaviour (i.e., a downward stream from the meta-level to the object level), but only one study so far has explored how this relationship is mapped in the brain. 35 In the other track, researchers investigate EF, also referred to as cognitive control, 30,36 which is closely related to metacognition. Note however that EF are often not framed in metacognitive terms in the literature 37 (but see 30 ).…”

“…One study added a condition to the task in which subjects can report their desire for a reminder in order to track brain activity related to cognitiveoffloading, an aspect of meta-control. 35 The most commonly used methods to assess metacognitive sensitivity during retrospective judgments are the Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) and meta-d'. 46 Both derive from Signal Detection Theory (SDT) 47 which allows Type 1 sensitivity, or d' (how a subject can discriminate between stimulus alternatives, i.e.…”

“…In terms of the role of metacognitive judgements on future behaviour, one study found that brain patterns associated with the desire for cognitive offloading (i.e., meta-control) partially overlap with those associated with meta-knowledge (metacognitive judgements of 10 confidence), suggesting that meta-control is driven by either non-metacognitive, in addition to metacognitive, processes or by a combination of different domain-specific metaknowledge processes. 35…”