Metacognitive computations for information search: Confidence in control.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1037/rev0000401
Lion Schulz, Stephen M Fleming, Peter Dayan
{"title":"Metacognitive computations for information search: Confidence in control.","authors":"Lion Schulz,&nbsp;Stephen M Fleming,&nbsp;Peter Dayan","doi":"10.1037/rev0000401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The metacognitive sense of confidence can play a critical role in regulating decision making. In particular, a lack of confidence can justify the explicit, potentially costly, instrumental acquisition of extra information that might resolve uncertainty. Human confidence is highly complex, and recent computational work has suggested a statistically sophisticated tapestry behind the information that governs both the making and monitoring of choices. However, the consequences of the form of such confidence computations for search have yet to be understood. Here, we reveal extra richness in the use of confidence for information seeking by formulating joint models of action, confidence, and information search within a Bayesian and reinforcement learning framework. Through detailed theoretical analysis of these models, we show the intricate normative downstream consequences for search arising from more complex forms of metacognition. For example, our results highlight how the ability to monitor errors or general metacognitive sensitivity impact seeking decisions and can generate diverse relationships between action, confidence, and the optimal search for information. We also explore whether empirical search behavior enjoys any of the characteristics of normatively derived prescriptions. More broadly, our work demonstrates that it is crucial to treat metacognitive monitoring and control as closely linked processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"130 3","pages":"604-639"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000401","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The metacognitive sense of confidence can play a critical role in regulating decision making. In particular, a lack of confidence can justify the explicit, potentially costly, instrumental acquisition of extra information that might resolve uncertainty. Human confidence is highly complex, and recent computational work has suggested a statistically sophisticated tapestry behind the information that governs both the making and monitoring of choices. However, the consequences of the form of such confidence computations for search have yet to be understood. Here, we reveal extra richness in the use of confidence for information seeking by formulating joint models of action, confidence, and information search within a Bayesian and reinforcement learning framework. Through detailed theoretical analysis of these models, we show the intricate normative downstream consequences for search arising from more complex forms of metacognition. For example, our results highlight how the ability to monitor errors or general metacognitive sensitivity impact seeking decisions and can generate diverse relationships between action, confidence, and the optimal search for information. We also explore whether empirical search behavior enjoys any of the characteristics of normatively derived prescriptions. More broadly, our work demonstrates that it is crucial to treat metacognitive monitoring and control as closely linked processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信息搜索的元认知计算:控制的信心。
元认知自信在调节决策中起着关键作用。特别是,缺乏信心可以证明明确的、潜在昂贵的、有用的获取额外信息可能解决不确定性是合理的。人类的信心是高度复杂的,最近的计算工作表明,在控制选择的制定和监督的信息背后,有一个统计上复杂的挂毯。然而,这种置信度计算形式对搜索的影响还没有被理解。在这里,我们通过在贝叶斯和强化学习框架内制定行动、信心和信息搜索的联合模型,揭示了在信息搜索中使用信心的额外丰富性。通过对这些模型的详细理论分析,我们展示了由更复杂的元认知形式引起的搜索的复杂规范下游后果。例如,我们的研究结果强调了监控错误或一般元认知敏感性的能力如何影响寻求决策,并可以在行动、信心和最佳信息搜索之间产生不同的关系。我们还探讨了经验搜索行为是否具有规范衍生处方的任何特征。更广泛地说,我们的工作表明,将元认知监测和控制视为密切相关的过程是至关重要的。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
How does depressive cognition develop? A state-dependent network model of predictive processing. Bouncing back from life's perturbations: Formalizing psychological resilience from a complex systems perspective. The meaning of attention control. Counterfactuals and the logic of causal selection. The relation between learning and stimulus-response binding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1