Oops, scratch that! Monitoring one’s own errors during mental calculation

•The metacognitive feeling of error is a reliable error signal during mental calculation.•Fluency and post decision evaluation processes jointly determine feelings of error.•Implicit detection of errors can occur even when no feeling of error is reported. The feeling of error (FOE) is the subjective...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognition 2016-01, Vol.146, p.110-120
Hauptverfasser: Fernandez Cruz, Ana L., Arango-Muñoz, Santiago, Volz, Kirsten G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•The metacognitive feeling of error is a reliable error signal during mental calculation.•Fluency and post decision evaluation processes jointly determine feelings of error.•Implicit detection of errors can occur even when no feeling of error is reported. The feeling of error (FOE) is the subjective experience that something went wrong during a reasoning or calculation task. The main goal of the present study was to assess the accuracy of the FOE in the context of mental mathematical calculation. We used the number bisection task (NBT) to evoke this metacognitive feeling and assessed it by asking participants if they felt they have committed an error after solving the task. In the NBT participants have to determine whether the number presented in the middle οf a triplet corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the two outer numbers (e.g., 07_16_25) with a Yes/No answer. Our results show that FOE reports were strongly correlated with arithmetic errors and numerical properties of the NBT, suggesting that the FOE accurately represents the error. This finding indicates that even very fast metacognitive feelings are reliable when it comes to evaluating one’s own mental performance. Moreover, our results suggest that the occurrence of FOEs is determined by the fluency with which each triplet was solved and the post-decision evaluation processes that occurred after the NBT was solved. Additionally, we asked participants to report their confidence in the given answer for the cases where they did not report FOEs. Participants reported less confidence for the (objectively) incorrect answers than for the (objectively) correct ones, suggesting that in cases where they did not have a conscious FOE they still were able to implicitly detect their errors. Remarkably, confidence was also determined by the fluency of the NBT.
ISSN:0010-0277
1873-7838
DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.005