Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study
To best interact with the external world, humans are often required to consider the quality of their actions. Sometimes the environment furnishes rewards or punishments to signal action efficacy. However, when such feedback is absent or only partial, we must rely on internally generated signals to e...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognition 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104396-104396, Article 104396 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 104396 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 104396 |
container_title | Cognition |
container_volume | 205 |
creator | Locke, Shannon M. Mamassian, Pascal Landy, Michael S. |
description | To best interact with the external world, humans are often required to consider the quality of their actions. Sometimes the environment furnishes rewards or punishments to signal action efficacy. However, when such feedback is absent or only partial, we must rely on internally generated signals to evaluate our performance (i.e., metacognition). Yet, very little is known about how humans form such judgements of sensorimotor confidence. Do they monitor their actual performance or do they rely on cues to sensorimotor uncertainty? We investigated sensorimotor metacognition in two visuomotor tracking experiments, where participants followed an unpredictably moving dot cloud with a mouse cursor as it followed a random horizontal trajectory. Their goal was to infer the underlying target generating the dots, track it for several seconds, and then report their confidence in their tracking as better or worse than their average. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task difficulty with two methods: varying the size of the dot cloud and varying the stability of the target's velocity. In Experiment 2, the stimulus statistics were fixed and duration of the stimulus presentation was varied. We found similar levels of metacognitive sensitivity in all experiments, which was evidence against the cue-based strategy. The temporal analysis of metacognitive sensitivity revealed a recency effect, where error later in the trial had a greater influence on the sensorimotor confidence, consistent with a performance-monitoring strategy. From these results, we conclude that humans predominantly monitored their tracking performance, albeit inefficiently, to build a sense of sensorimotor confidence.
•Participants consciously reflected on their tracking performance with some accuracy•Sensorimotor confidence was mostly influenced by recent error•Expectations of task difficulty did not play a large role in sensorimotor confidence•Standard non-parametric techniques can be used to measure metacognitive sensitivity of binary sensorimotor-confidence reports |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7669557</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027720302158</els_id><sourcerecordid>2432433285</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-f2ce8037ad59eb847eebfd6499228526f830e2f1b2593d5496adc1ed4bcb2fa23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl-L1DAUxYMo7rj6FbTgiyId86dtEh-EYVBXGFgf9Dmk6e1sxplkTdqR_fbe0nHQfVEotLn5ndtzc0LIC0aXjLLm7W7p4jb4wcew5JRP1Uro5gFZMCVFKZVQD8mCUkZLyqW8IE9y3lFKKy7VY3IhsMY44wty_QVSH9PBBgfFIWLLmHzYFlgrMoSMq0PEWuFi6H0HiL0rVsXR5zHOG0Oy7vskycPY3T0lj3q7z_Ds9L4k3z5--Lq-KjfXnz6vV5vS1UIOZc8dKCqk7WoNraokQNt3TaU156rmTa8EBd6zltdadHWlG9s5Bl3Vupb3lotL8n7uezu2B-gcBPSxN7do16Y7E603f-8Ef2O28Whk0-i6ltjg9dzg5p7sarUxU40KWmkumiND9tXpZyn-GCEP5uCzg_3eBohjNrwS-Ah0jujLe-gujingUSClhcJxZIWUnCmXYs4J-rMDRs0UsNmZc8BmCtjMAaPy-Z9zn3W_E0XgzQz8hDb22fkpsjOGV6DWTFasxi8mkFb_T6_9YCdD6ziGAaWrWQoY89FDMid55xO4wXTR_3OaX4J23V0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2493859374</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Locke, Shannon M. ; Mamassian, Pascal ; Landy, Michael S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Locke, Shannon M. ; Mamassian, Pascal ; Landy, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><description>To best interact with the external world, humans are often required to consider the quality of their actions. Sometimes the environment furnishes rewards or punishments to signal action efficacy. However, when such feedback is absent or only partial, we must rely on internally generated signals to evaluate our performance (i.e., metacognition). Yet, very little is known about how humans form such judgements of sensorimotor confidence. Do they monitor their actual performance or do they rely on cues to sensorimotor uncertainty? We investigated sensorimotor metacognition in two visuomotor tracking experiments, where participants followed an unpredictably moving dot cloud with a mouse cursor as it followed a random horizontal trajectory. Their goal was to infer the underlying target generating the dots, track it for several seconds, and then report their confidence in their tracking as better or worse than their average. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task difficulty with two methods: varying the size of the dot cloud and varying the stability of the target's velocity. In Experiment 2, the stimulus statistics were fixed and duration of the stimulus presentation was varied. We found similar levels of metacognitive sensitivity in all experiments, which was evidence against the cue-based strategy. The temporal analysis of metacognitive sensitivity revealed a recency effect, where error later in the trial had a greater influence on the sensorimotor confidence, consistent with a performance-monitoring strategy. From these results, we conclude that humans predominantly monitored their tracking performance, albeit inefficiently, to build a sense of sensorimotor confidence.
•Participants consciously reflected on their tracking performance with some accuracy•Sensorimotor confidence was mostly influenced by recent error•Expectations of task difficulty did not play a large role in sensorimotor confidence•Standard non-parametric techniques can be used to measure metacognitive sensitivity of binary sensorimotor-confidence reports</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32771212</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>AMSTERDAM: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Action ; Averages ; Cognitive science ; Confidence ; Cues ; Efficacy ; Feedback, Sensory ; Humans ; Judgment ; Metacognition ; Perception ; Psychology ; Psychology, Experimental ; Psychomotor Performance ; Sensorimotor ; Sensorimotor integration ; Sensorimotor system ; Social Sciences ; Statistical analysis ; Stimulus ; Tracking ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104396-104396, Article 104396</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2020</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>20</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000591741500013</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-f2ce8037ad59eb847eebfd6499228526f830e2f1b2593d5496adc1ed4bcb2fa23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-f2ce8037ad59eb847eebfd6499228526f830e2f1b2593d5496adc1ed4bcb2fa23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1605-4607 ; 0000-0003-1787-3345</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027720302158$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32771212$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03049236$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Locke, Shannon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mamassian, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landy, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><title>Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>COGNITION</addtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>To best interact with the external world, humans are often required to consider the quality of their actions. Sometimes the environment furnishes rewards or punishments to signal action efficacy. However, when such feedback is absent or only partial, we must rely on internally generated signals to evaluate our performance (i.e., metacognition). Yet, very little is known about how humans form such judgements of sensorimotor confidence. Do they monitor their actual performance or do they rely on cues to sensorimotor uncertainty? We investigated sensorimotor metacognition in two visuomotor tracking experiments, where participants followed an unpredictably moving dot cloud with a mouse cursor as it followed a random horizontal trajectory. Their goal was to infer the underlying target generating the dots, track it for several seconds, and then report their confidence in their tracking as better or worse than their average. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task difficulty with two methods: varying the size of the dot cloud and varying the stability of the target's velocity. In Experiment 2, the stimulus statistics were fixed and duration of the stimulus presentation was varied. We found similar levels of metacognitive sensitivity in all experiments, which was evidence against the cue-based strategy. The temporal analysis of metacognitive sensitivity revealed a recency effect, where error later in the trial had a greater influence on the sensorimotor confidence, consistent with a performance-monitoring strategy. From these results, we conclude that humans predominantly monitored their tracking performance, albeit inefficiently, to build a sense of sensorimotor confidence.
•Participants consciously reflected on their tracking performance with some accuracy•Sensorimotor confidence was mostly influenced by recent error•Expectations of task difficulty did not play a large role in sensorimotor confidence•Standard non-parametric techniques can be used to measure metacognitive sensitivity of binary sensorimotor-confidence reports</description><subject>Action</subject><subject>Averages</subject><subject>Cognitive science</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>Feedback, Sensory</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology, Experimental</subject><subject>Psychomotor Performance</subject><subject>Sensorimotor</subject><subject>Sensorimotor integration</subject><subject>Sensorimotor system</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Stimulus</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ARHDP</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl-L1DAUxYMo7rj6FbTgiyId86dtEh-EYVBXGFgf9Dmk6e1sxplkTdqR_fbe0nHQfVEotLn5ndtzc0LIC0aXjLLm7W7p4jb4wcew5JRP1Uro5gFZMCVFKZVQD8mCUkZLyqW8IE9y3lFKKy7VY3IhsMY44wty_QVSH9PBBgfFIWLLmHzYFlgrMoSMq0PEWuFi6H0HiL0rVsXR5zHOG0Oy7vskycPY3T0lj3q7z_Ds9L4k3z5--Lq-KjfXnz6vV5vS1UIOZc8dKCqk7WoNraokQNt3TaU156rmTa8EBd6zltdadHWlG9s5Bl3Vupb3lotL8n7uezu2B-gcBPSxN7do16Y7E603f-8Ef2O28Whk0-i6ltjg9dzg5p7sarUxU40KWmkumiND9tXpZyn-GCEP5uCzg_3eBohjNrwS-Ah0jujLe-gujingUSClhcJxZIWUnCmXYs4J-rMDRs0UsNmZc8BmCtjMAaPy-Z9zn3W_E0XgzQz8hDb22fkpsjOGV6DWTFasxi8mkFb_T6_9YCdD6ziGAaWrWQoY89FDMid55xO4wXTR_3OaX4J23V0</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>Locke, Shannon M.</creator><creator>Mamassian, Pascal</creator><creator>Landy, Michael S.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>17B</scope><scope>ARHDP</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-4607</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1787-3345</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study</title><author>Locke, Shannon M. ; Mamassian, Pascal ; Landy, Michael S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-f2ce8037ad59eb847eebfd6499228526f830e2f1b2593d5496adc1ed4bcb2fa23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Action</topic><topic>Averages</topic><topic>Cognitive science</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>Feedback, Sensory</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology, Experimental</topic><topic>Psychomotor Performance</topic><topic>Sensorimotor</topic><topic>Sensorimotor integration</topic><topic>Sensorimotor system</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Stimulus</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Locke, Shannon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mamassian, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landy, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI & AHCI)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Locke, Shannon M.</au><au>Mamassian, Pascal</au><au>Landy, Michael S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><stitle>COGNITION</stitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>205</volume><spage>104396</spage><epage>104396</epage><pages>104396-104396</pages><artnum>104396</artnum><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>To best interact with the external world, humans are often required to consider the quality of their actions. Sometimes the environment furnishes rewards or punishments to signal action efficacy. However, when such feedback is absent or only partial, we must rely on internally generated signals to evaluate our performance (i.e., metacognition). Yet, very little is known about how humans form such judgements of sensorimotor confidence. Do they monitor their actual performance or do they rely on cues to sensorimotor uncertainty? We investigated sensorimotor metacognition in two visuomotor tracking experiments, where participants followed an unpredictably moving dot cloud with a mouse cursor as it followed a random horizontal trajectory. Their goal was to infer the underlying target generating the dots, track it for several seconds, and then report their confidence in their tracking as better or worse than their average. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task difficulty with two methods: varying the size of the dot cloud and varying the stability of the target's velocity. In Experiment 2, the stimulus statistics were fixed and duration of the stimulus presentation was varied. We found similar levels of metacognitive sensitivity in all experiments, which was evidence against the cue-based strategy. The temporal analysis of metacognitive sensitivity revealed a recency effect, where error later in the trial had a greater influence on the sensorimotor confidence, consistent with a performance-monitoring strategy. From these results, we conclude that humans predominantly monitored their tracking performance, albeit inefficiently, to build a sense of sensorimotor confidence.
•Participants consciously reflected on their tracking performance with some accuracy•Sensorimotor confidence was mostly influenced by recent error•Expectations of task difficulty did not play a large role in sensorimotor confidence•Standard non-parametric techniques can be used to measure metacognitive sensitivity of binary sensorimotor-confidence reports</abstract><cop>AMSTERDAM</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32771212</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-4607</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1787-3345</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0277 |
ispartof | Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104396-104396, Article 104396 |
issn | 0010-0277 1873-7838 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7669557 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Action Averages Cognitive science Confidence Cues Efficacy Feedback, Sensory Humans Judgment Metacognition Perception Psychology Psychology, Experimental Psychomotor Performance Sensorimotor Sensorimotor integration Sensorimotor system Social Sciences Statistical analysis Stimulus Tracking Uncertainty |
title | Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T15%3A11%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20monitoring%20for%20sensorimotor%20confidence:%20A%20visuomotor%20tracking%20study&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Locke,%20Shannon%20M.&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=205&rft.spage=104396&rft.epage=104396&rft.pages=104396-104396&rft.artnum=104396&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2432433285%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2493859374&rft_id=info:pmid/32771212&rft_els_id=S0010027720302158&rfr_iscdi=true |