Skip to main content
Brain Communications logoLink to Brain Communications
. 2022 May 25;4(3):fcac139. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac139

Response to: Metacognition in functional cognitive disorder: contradictory or convergent experimental results?

Rohan Bhome 1,✉,#, Andrew McWilliams 2,3,4,5,#, Gary Price 6, Norman A Poole 7, Robert J Howard 8, Stephen M Fleming 9,10,11, Jonathan D Huntley 12
PMCID: PMC9189610  PMID: 35706978

Dr Larner1 highlights the findings of a recent paper by Pennington et al.2 in which the authors ‘did not find metacognitive deficits in groups of well-characterized patients with functional cognitive disorder (FCD)’ and suggests that this is both contradictory to our findings and places our proposed Bayesian account in jeopardy.3 In fact (as Dr Larner later admits), the findings from the two studies are convergent. In both our3 and Pennington et al.’s2 studies, local metacognition—the extent to which trial by trial ratings of confidence covary with task performance—was measured in people with FCD. In both studies, across both perceptual and memory tasks, local metacognitive efficiency (meta-d’/d’) was unimpaired relative to controls. As Dr Larner points out, it is difficult to place too much reliability on null results with small samples, which might reflect a consequence of Type 2 errors. Replication of intact local metacognition in FCD across two distinct samples is therefore noteworthy, and we were pleased to see Pennington et al.’s data.2

As Dr Larner further highlights, we found that people with FCD had deficits in global metacognition, which was not investigated by Pennington et al.2 The reasons for this dissociation remain unclear, and understanding this linkage will benefit from novel tasks that allow the relationship between local and global metacognition to be quantified.4,5 However, the Bayesian model we proposed in our paper sought to accommodate the observed null findings with respect to local metacognition—and is therefore supported, rather than contradicted, by Pennington et al.’s convergent findings.2 There are no doubt alternative possibilities, and the suggestion that neural networks might overfit to experience due to impaired sleep and dreaming, leading to selective impairment in global metacognition, is certainly interesting and warrants further investigation.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed.

Contributor Information

Rohan Bhome, Dementia Research Centre, University College London, 8-11 Queen Square, London, UK.

Andrew McWilliams, Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, UK; Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK; UCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street, London, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

Gary Price, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.

Norman A. Poole, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK

Robert J. Howard, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK

Stephen M. Fleming, Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, UK Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK; Max Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, London, UK.

Jonathan D. Huntley, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK

Funding

R.B. is supported by a Wolfson-Eisai Clinical Research Training Fellowship. R.J.H. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR UCLH BRC). A.M. is supported by the Mental Health and Justice Project funded by the Wellcome Trust (203376/2/16/Z). The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z). S.M.F. is supported by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (206648/Z/17/Z). J.D.H. is funded by a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (214547/Z/18/Z).

Competing interests

The authors report no competing interests.

References

  • 1. Larner AJ. Metacognition in functional cognitive disorder: Contradictory or convergent experimental results? Brain Commun 2022. 10.1093/braincomms/fcac138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Pennington C, Ball H, Swirski M, Newson M, Coulthard E. Metacognitive performance on memory and visuospatial tasks in functional cognitive disorder. Brain Sci 2021;11(10):1368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Bhome R, McWilliams A, Price G, et al. Metacognition in functional cognitive disorder. Brain Commun 2022;4(2):fcac041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Rouault M, Dayan P, Fleming SM. Forming global estimates of self-performance from local confidence. Nat Commun 2019;10:1141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Seow TXF, Rouault M, Gillan CM, Fleming SM. How local and global metacognition shape mental health. Biol Psychiatry 2021;90(7):436–446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed.


Articles from Brain Communications are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES