Fig. 4: Data and model fits show distorted learning from local metacognition.
From: Distorted learning from local metacognition supports transdiagnostic underconfidence
Results from Exp 1 (left column (a, c, e); N = 230) and Exp 2 (right column (b, d, f); N = 287). Mean global self-performance estimates (SPEs) and 95% confidence intervals depicted in (a–d) are obtained from linear regression models after regressing out random effects of participant, block number, and trial number from observed data (filled circles) and model fits (unfilled triangles). a, b Global SPEs plotted against local confidence (z-scored and split into 4 quantiles per individual) separately for individuals belonging to the lowest (gold) and highest (blue) tertiles of anxious-depression symptom scores (obtained using the GAD-7 questionnaire in Exp 1 and transdiagnostically in Exp 2). Depicted statistical comparisons are for slopes of higher confidence values between higher and lower anxious-depression scores. c, d Global SPEs plotted for blocks with more frequent negative feedback, no feedback, and more frequent positive feedback, separately for individuals with low and high anxious-depression scores. e, f Deviation Information Criteria (DIC) scores for the seven possible models of how different distortions in global SPE formation relate to AD symptom scores: D0—No distortion, D1—Confidence distortion only, D2—Feedback distortion only, D3—Response bias only, D4—Confidence and feedback distortions, D5—Confidence distortion and response bias, D6—Feedback distortion and response bias. Posterior distributions of regression slope parameters relating anxious-depression symptoms to (g) confidence and (h) feedback distortions for model D4 in Exp 1 and Exp 2. Regression coefficient values from Exp 2 are divided by 5 (corresponding to the difference in the range of GAD and Anxious-Depression axis scores) to allow direct comparison of coefficients.
