Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 23;9:e56477. doi: 10.7554/eLife.56477

Figure 2. Separate influences of motion coherence and social context on confidence reports.

(A) Mean confidence reported for each level of coherence. (B) Mean confidence reported when playing with each partner. The question mark indicates a condition where the partner’s identity was hidden. (C) Heat map visualising mean confidence in each condition of our factorial design (confidence was z-scored for each subject before averaging across subjects). Warmer colours indicate higher confidence. All data are from the fMRI session. In (A) and (B), data are represented as group mean ± SEM. Each dot is a subject.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Analysis of confidence reports in prescan session.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

Rows 1–3 indicate phases 2–4 in the behavioural session (see Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Row 4 indicates the fMRI session and is included for comparison. (A) Mean confidence reported for each level of coherence. (B) Mean confidence reported when playing with each partner. The question mark indicates a condition in which the partner’s identity was hidden. (C) Heat map over mean confidence in each condition of our factorial design (confidence was z-scored for each subject before averaging across subjects). Warmer colours indicate higher confidence. In (A) and (B), data are represented as group mean ± SEM. Each dot is a subject.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Analysis of confidence reports separated by partner identity.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

Each partner was identified by a unique colour (pink, blue, green or red) and name (Hamed, Max, Sara or Jennifer) – with the name indicating the partner’s gender. The attributes were randomly assigned to the four partner types (low, medium-low, medium-high and high). Visualisation of mean confidence reported for each partner name indicates that there was no modulation by partner identity. As the task was not optimised for studying identity effects (e.g., a subject does not experience the same name in association with different partner types or the same partner type in association with different names), we did not seek to further unpack behaviour in terms of partner identity. Data are represented as group mean ± SEM. Each dot is a subject.