DOI: 10.5061/dryad.95x69p8gr
title: A comparison between implicit and explicit self-monitoring: temporal wagering versus confidence rating

description: Self-monitoring is a metacognitive activity that individuals control and
 alter their behavior based on the assessments of their own cognitive
 status, which involves both explicit and implicit dimensions. Confidence
 rating task is mostly used to measure explicit monitoring. Recently
 post-decision wagering (PDW) task has been developed to quantify implicit
 monitoring ability. Specifically, temporal wagering task estimates the
 decision confidence by measuring the waiting time subjects are willing to
 spend in waiting delayed reward, which is called wagering time (WT). The
 index has only been applied in animals experiment so far, but it values in
 deeply exploring the underlying mechanism of metacognitive monitoring.
 Thus in this experiment, WT is tested whether it fits on measuring human’s
 implicit monitoring ability. Results show that there are significantly
 positive correlation between WT and confidence. Moreover, there are
 several consistent effects showing metacognitive features in both WT and
 confidence—being able to measure metacognitive sensitivity and
 metacognitive efficiency; predicting the decision accuracy as well as
 serial dependence effect. All results have illustrated that WT indeed can
 be a good proxy of confidence and therefore provide an effective measure
 to study metacognitive monitoring on human. It can also help instruct the
 clinical treatments of psychiatric patients with deficits in
 self-monitoring.
description: We apply a within-subject design in which both temporal wagering
 task and confidence rating task are used. 3600 trials were colleccted from
 30 subjects (average age = 22.1, sd = 0.84). Half of the trials are
 temporal wagering data. 
description: Contributors<br> Duan Wei (dw6805@126.com)
 Stimulus<br> Pairs of images extracted from video
 narrative, being different only in resolution. 
 Confidence scale<br> 6-point scale:  "Extremely
 Low", 'Very Low", "Low", "High",
 "Very High", "Extremely High"
 Response type<br> Correct and high confidence: response
 type 1; correct and low confidence: response type 2; incorrect and low
 confidence: response type 3; incorrect and high confience: response type
 4. Although catch trials are correct and high confidence, but we denote it
 as response type 5 for specific analyses. 
 Level<br> 6 levels. Level 1 is the hardest one and 6 is the
 easiest one.  Manipulations<br> Participants
 performed either temporal wagering task or confidence rating task in a
 block. Block size<br> 60. 
 Feedback<br> Trial-by-trial feedback was
 provided. Subject population<br> Young adults
 (20-24 years old). Response device<br> Computer
 keyboard. Experiment setting<br> online;
 behavioral Training<br> No.
 Experiment goal<br> Examine the similarity of patterns
 shown by WT and confidence. Main result<br> WT
 showed similar pattern to confidence. Experiment
 dates<br> Data were collected between January, 2020 and March,
 2020.  Location of data collection<br> Because of
 the quaranteen, subjects did the experiment at home after downloading
 Psychopy and experiment programme. Language of data
 collection<br> Chinese.