Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Rev. 2020 Jul 16;128(1):45–70. doi: 10.1037/rev0000249

Figure 9. Predictions of Standard SDT, Gaussian meta noise, and Lognormal meta noise models for the dependence of existing measures of metacognition on the confidence criterion.

Figure 9.

We observed a stark difference in the models’ predictions for the relationship between confidence criteria and the measures meta-d’/d’ and meta-d’. While the Lognormal noise model successfully captured the empirically observed negative relationship between metacognition and confidence criterion for meta-d’/d’ and meta-d’, the Gaussian meta noise and Standard SDT models predicted qualitatively different relationships between metacognitive scores and confidence criteria for these measures. For the other two measures, Type-2 AUC and Phi, all the three models consistently predicted an inverted U-shaped function, suggesting that the strong parametric assumptions of these measures overshadowed the effect of metacognitive noise. The shaded areas represent the S.E.M. of the measures across subjects.