Regional White Matter Variation Associated with Domain-specific Metacognitive Accuracy

Abstract

Abstract■ The neural mechanisms that mediate metacognitive ability (the capacity to accurately reflect on oneʼs own cognition and experience) remain poorly understood. An important question is whether metacognitive capacity is a domain-general skill supported by a core neuroanatomical substrate or whether regionally specific neural structures underlie accurate reflection in different cognitive domains. Providing preliminary support for the latter possibility, recent findings have shown that individual differences in metacognitive ability in the domains of memory and perception are related to variation in distinct gray matter volume and resting-state functional connectivity. The current investigation sought to build on these findings by evaluating how metacognitive ability in these domains is related to variation in white matter microstructure. We quantified metacognitive ability across memory and perception domains and used diffusion spectrum imaging to examine the relation between high-resolution measurements of white matter microstructure and individual differences in metacognitive accuracy in each domain. We found that metacognitive accuracy for perceptual decisions and memory were uncorrelated across individuals and that metacognitive accuracy in each domain was related to variation in white matter microstructure in distinct brain areas. Metacognitive accuracy for perceptual decisions was associated with increased diffusion anisotropy in white matter underlying the ACC, whereas metacognitive accuracy for memory retrieval was associated with increased diffusion anisotropy in the white matter extending into the inferior parietal lobule. Together, these results extend previous findings linking metacognitive ability in the domains of perception and memory to variation in distinct brain structures and connections. ■

Metacognition across sensory modalities: Vision, warmth, and nociceptive pain

“…This is consistent with previous studies that found correlations in mean confidence levels across different tasks, both within and between sensory modalities (Ais et al, 2016, Song et al, 2011) and between perceptual and memory domains (Baird et al, 2015, Baird et al, 2013, McCurdy et al, 2013). Some studies also found a task-dependent component of metacognitive bias which was attributed to differences in difficulty between tasks (Baird et al, 2015, Baird et al, 2013, Song et al, 2011). We did not find a task-dependent component of metacognitive bias, even though the innocuous warmth discrimination task was more difficult than the nociceptive pain discrimination task and the visual contrast discrimination task.…”

Brain networks for confidence weighting and hierarchical inference during probabilistic learning

“…This finding accords well with the known lateralization of the attention system (48). Such a lateralization is also reported in the metacognition literature, where interindividual differences in metacognitive abilities correlate with differences in white matter structure (49), fMRI signals (50), and even lesions (51) that are mostly observed in the right hemisphere, although not always (52).…”

Substrates of metacognition on perception and metacognition on higher‐order cognition relate to different subsystems of the mentalizing network

“…Similarly, the brain basis of MC is still unknown. On the one hand, functional and structural neuroimaging studies have frequently localized substrates of MC in prefrontal regions [Baird et al, ; Fleming et al, ; McCaig et al, ; Yokoyama et al, ], possibly suggesting some domain‐generality. In an influential theory, MC was related to mentalizing, also called Theory of Mind (ToM) [Frith, ], where taking the perspective on one's own actions may rely on processes and (largely prefrontal) networks similar to those involved in taking the perspective of others [Lombardo et al, ; Frith, ].…”